The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 002) 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95 were read on this motion to/for STRIKE PLEADINGS. DECISION ORDER ON MOTION Upon the foregoing documents, it is ordered that the motion of defendants Veolia North America Inc. (s/h/a Veolia North America Inc. & Subsidiaries) and Harold Eddins (collectively, “Eddins”) is granted in part. This matter arises out of an incident that occurred on June 6, 2017, on East 70th Street near York Avenue in Manhattan. Plaintiff alleges that while she was entering a stopped Access-A-Ride vehicle on the passenger side, the vehicle was hit on its driver’s side by a vehicle driven by Eddins, causing plaintiff to fall, sustaining personal injuries. Eddins now moves pursuant to CPLR S 3126 to strike plaintiffs complaint for failure to comply with certain discovery, or alternatively, for an order precluding plaintiff from offering any evidence at trial in support of her claims, or compelling discovery responses. Plaintiff opposes the motion. Prior to the full submission of the instant motion, the parties resolved certain discovery disputes by means of a Stipulation dated March 17, 2021, which is annexed hereto and made a part hereof. The sole remaining issue raised by the instant motion is whether plaintiff must respond to Eddins’ Demand for Disclosure of Lien/Loan Information (Affirmation in Support, Exhibit H). For the reasons set forth below, this portion of the motion is denied. Eddins maintains, inter alia, that defendants are entitled to know the identity of all entities that have or intend to assert a medical lien on any recovery by plaintiff, and that to the extent any medical provider’s services to plaintiff are subject to a loan whose collection is contingent on the success of this action, defendants should be allowed to discover such liens or loans for the purpose of challenging both such medical provider’s credibility as to causation and the reasonableness of claimed medical expenses. Plaintiff argues that while the Appellate Division has yet to rule on either the discoverability or admissibility of litigation funding information, lower courts have held that this information is not discoverable, citing to Cabrera v. 1279 Morris LLC, 2013 WL 5418611 (Sup. Ct. Bronx 2013), and Urbanik v. Riese, Index No. 712350/2017 (Sup. Ct. Queens 2020). In each case, the court found that the litigation funding at issue was not material or necessary to the defense of the action. In Cabrera, the court noted that “[t]he subject loan is not part of plaintiff’s damages,” while the Urbanik court found that “[t]he value of a case does not depend on how much the litigation is funded, and disclosure of this information is not likely to result in relevant evidence or lead to information bearing on plaintiffs claim for damages.” CPLR S 3101(a) provides that “[t]here shall be full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action.” The Court of Appeals has long held that such provision “should be construed, as the leading text on practice puts it, to permit discovery of testimony ‘which is sufficiently related to the issues in litigation to make the effort to obtain it in preparation for trial reasonable’ (3 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, N. Y. Civ. Prac., par. 3101.07, p. 31-13).” Allen v. Crowell-Collier Publishing Co., 21 N.Y.2d 403, 406-07 (1968). The Court also held that the lower courts have “wide discretion” in determining what is “material and necessary,” and that such words are “to be interpreted liberally to require disclosure, upon request, of any facts bearing on the controversy which will assist preparation for trial by sharpening the issues and reducing delay and prolixity. The test is one of usefulness and reason.” Allen, 21 N.Y.2d at 406. This court agrees with the holdings of both Cabrera and Urbanik that litigation funding is generally not discoverable. Here, the litigation funding in question is not the subject of plaintiff’s claim for damages, and is not a collateral source pursuant to CPLR S 4545. As such, defendants are not entitled to the discovery relating to any litigation funding herein, including that which is being provided by plaintiffs treating physicians. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that plaintiff shall comply with the Stipulation dated March 17, 2021, which is annexed hereto and made a part hereof; and it is further ORDERED that the remainder of the motion is denied. This constitutes the decision and order of the court. CHECK ONE: CASE DISPOSED X NON-FINAL DISPOSITION GRANTED DENIED X GRANTED IN PART OTHER APPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT REFERENCE Dated: April 5, 2021
