Preview
FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 11/01/2023 04:22 PM INDEX NO. 303755/2016E
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 37 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/01/2023
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNIT OF BRONX
---------..------------------------------------------------------------- Ç
ORELL GAYNOR,
Plaintiff(s),
Index No. 303755/2016E
-against-
File No.: 2016-000348
NEW YORK CITY HEALTH AND HOSPITALS
CORPORATION, THE CITY OF NEW YORK,
LINCOLN MEDICAL and MENTAL HEALTH CENTER,
EDUARDO J. RODRIGUEZ PEREZ, M.D., ANDALEEB
RAJA, M.D., PRONOY ROY, M.D., NEW YORK CITY
HOSPITAL POLICE DEPARTMENT, and PHYSICIAN
AFFILIATE GROUP OF NEW YORK,
Defendant(s).
DEFENDANT'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S
INTERROGATORIES DATED .JULY 31, 2023:
Defendant, PRONOY ROY, M.D. ("Defendant"), by and through the undersigned
attorneys, hereby submits the following objections and responses ("Responses") to Plaintiff's
interrogatories dated July 31, 2023 ("Requests").
GENERAL STATEMENTS
1. Defendant's Responses to the Requests are based on information presently
known to the Defendant and/or his attorneys. Defendant herein reserves the right to supplement,
amend or modify these responses in the event and to the extent future discovery so justifies. Should
the Defendant at any time supplement or amend his responses to any Request by agreement or
otherwise, the Defendant reserves the right to assert any available privilege or other protection as
to any document that might otherwise be discoverable in connection with Defendant's
supplementation or amendment.
1 of 7
FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 11/01/2023 04:22 PM INDEX NO. 303755/2016E
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 37 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/01/2023
2. Defendant herein does not waive and does not intend to waive any
objections he may have regarding plaintiff's use of any documents. Defendant expressly reserves:
(a) all objections regarding the competency, privilege, relevance, materiality and admissibility of
all documents produced and the contents thereof; (b) the right to object to Plaintiff's use of any of
Defendant's Responses, in whole or in part, or to object to the subject matter covered thereby in
any later stage or proceeding in this litigation or any other litigation, on any or all of the grounds
set forth herein; (c) the right to object on any and all proper grounds, at any time, to other discovery
procedures involving or relating to the subject matter of any documents produced by Defendant;
and (d) all objections as to vagueness and ambiguity.
3. Privileged documents and communications responsive to a particular
Request, if any such documents exist, will not be produced. If any document subject to the
attorney-client privilege, the work product immunity doctrine or any other privilege or immunity
is inadvertently produced, such production shall not be construed as a waiver of such privilege or
immunity.
4. Nothing contained in any response to a particular Request shall be deemed
an admission, concession or waiver by the Defendant of any contention with respect to the validity
of any claim asserted by Plaintiff or to Plaintiff's standing or capacity to assert any claim.
GENERAL OBJECTIONS
The following General Objections apply to each of the Requests and shall have the
same force and effect as if set forth in full in response to each individually numbered Request:
1. Defendant objects generally to the Requests to the extent that they seek
information that is not relevant, is overbroad as to time and scope, are unduly burdensome,
2 of 7
FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 11/01/2023 04:22 PM INDEX NO. 303755/2016E
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 37 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/01/2023
unintelligible, vague or ambiguous or seek to impose burdens or duties upon the Defendant that
exceeds the scope of permissible discovery.
2. Defendant objects generally to the Requests to the extent that they are
repetitive, redundant and or seek information already in Plaintiff's possession.
3. Defendant objects generally to the Requests to the extent that seek
they
infonnation protected from disclosure by applicable privileges or immunities, attorney-
including
client privilege, the attorney work product immunity or any other protection from discovery. Any
inadvertent production of such information shall not be deemed a waiver of the applicable privilege
or immunity.
4. Defendant objects generally to the Requests to the extent that they purport
to seek information not in the possession, custody or control of the Defendant.
5. Defendant reserves all objections to the admissibility of any document
produced in response to the Requests. Production of any document in response to the Requests
does not constitute an admission by Defendants that such document is relevant to or admissible in
this action.
RESPONSES TO THE REQUESTS
1. Did you view the approximately 2 hours of video served by counsel for
NEW YORK CITY HEALTH AND HOSPITALS CORP ORATION in its entirety?
imSl'ONNE: Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections,
Defend ant herein states that he watched four separate surveillance videos that were provided
by counsel for NEW YORK CITY HEALTH AND HOSPITALS CORPORATION and that
each video provided was approximately thirty minutes.
2. Was the video that you just viewed different from any prior video that you
ever viewed of the incident that occurred on January 3, 2016?
3 of 7
FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 11/01/2023 04:22 PM INDEX NO. 303755/2016E
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 37 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/01/2023
R ESl'ONSE: Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections,
Defendant herein states that the only apparent difference in the surveillance video provided
by NEW YORK CITY HEALTH AND HOSPITALS CORPORATION from the video that
Defendant herein observed on or about January 3, 2016 is that in the video provided by NEW
YORK CITY HEALTH AND HOSPITALS CORPORATION appears to have patients with
blurred faces. Additionally, Defendant herein states that when he reviewed the initial
surveillance video he did not watch the video in its entirety, and does not recall which portion
of the video he watched on or about January 3, 2016. Defendant herein states he does not
recall any other differences between the two videos.
3. If the current video is in any way different from the prior video, then state
each and every difference that you observed or recall.
RESPONSE: See response to 2.
After viewing the current approximately 2-hour video in its entirety, has your
memory been refreshed in any manner regarding the incident of January 3, 2016?
RESPONNE: Objection as this request is not compliant with permissible
questions as per the Hon. Danziger's May 11, 2023 Interim Order. Notwithstanding and
subject to and without waiving the objections, Defendant states that his
foregoing memory
has not been refreshed.
4. After viewing the current approximately 2-hour video in its entirety would
you change any of your testimony concerning the events of January 3, 2016 as you testified to at
your deposition.
RESPONSE: Objection as this request is not compliant with permissible
questions as per the Hon. Danziger's May 11, 2023 Interim Order. Notwithstanding and
4 of 7
FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 11/01/2023 04:22 PM INDEX NO. 303755/2016E
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 37 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/01/2023
subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant states that he would not
change his deposition testimony.
Dated: New York, New York
October 30, 2023
Andrea Cohen, General Counsel
New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation
Attorney for Dr. Pronoy Roy
26d'
55 Water Street, Floor
New York, NY 10041
Of Counsel: Dyan Kleinnum
Tel: (646) 694-6762
File No. 2016-000348
To: Pena & Kahn
1250 Waters Place, Suite 901
Bronx, New York 10461
5 of 7
FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 11/01/2023 04:22 PM INDEX NO. 303755/2016E
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 37 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/01/2023
VERIFICKfION
STATE OF NEW YORK )
COUNTY OF BRONX
I, PRONOY ROY, M.D., the undersigned, being duly sworn, depose and say:
I
I am a Defendant in the within action. I have read the foregoing Defendant's Response
to Plaintiff's Interrogatories and know the contents thereof; and the same is true according to
my own personal knowledge and belief,
PRO OY ROY .D.
Sworn to before me this
day of ÚJt/t-r¾Ó6t 2023
Brandee GK Griffith
Notary Public - State of New York
NOTAh U C No. 01GR6203905
Qualified in Bronx Co int
My Commission Expires Di DJ ) b
6 of 7
FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 11/01/2023 04:22 PM INDEX NO. 303755/2016E
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 37 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/01/2023
STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF NEW YORK, SS.:
The undersigned, an attorney admitted to practice in the Courts of New York State
shows: That (s)he is employed in the office of the General Counsel of the New York City Health
and Hospitals Corporation and affinns this staternent to be true under the penalties of perjury,
pursuant to Rule 2106 CPLR:
That on the 30th day of October she served the annexed Response to Plaintiff s
Interrogatories,
Upon: Pena & Kahn
1250 Waters Place, Suite 901
Bronx, New York 10461
via NYSCEF.
Dated: New York, New York
October 30, 2023
yan inman
7 of 7
Preview
FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 11/01/2023 04:22 PM INDEX NO. 303755/2016E NYSCEF DOC. NO. 37 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/01/2023 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNIT OF BRONX ---------..------------------------------------------------------------- Ç ORELL GAYNOR, Plaintiff(s), Index No. 303755/2016E -against- File No.: 2016-000348 NEW YORK CITY HEALTH AND HOSPITALS CORPORATION, THE CITY OF NEW YORK, LINCOLN MEDICAL and MENTAL HEALTH CENTER, EDUARDO J. RODRIGUEZ PEREZ, M.D., ANDALEEB RAJA, M.D., PRONOY ROY, M.D., NEW YORK CITY HOSPITAL POLICE DEPARTMENT, and PHYSICIAN AFFILIATE GROUP OF NEW YORK, Defendant(s). DEFENDANT'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES DATED .JULY 31, 2023: Defendant, PRONOY ROY, M.D. ("Defendant"), by and through the undersigned attorneys, hereby submits the following objections and responses ("Responses") to Plaintiff's interrogatories dated July 31, 2023 ("Requests"). GENERAL STATEMENTS 1. Defendant's Responses to the Requests are based on information presently known to the Defendant and/or his attorneys. Defendant herein reserves the right to supplement, amend or modify these responses in the event and to the extent future discovery so justifies. Should the Defendant at any time supplement or amend his responses to any Request by agreement or otherwise, the Defendant reserves the right to assert any available privilege or other protection as to any document that might otherwise be discoverable in connection with Defendant's supplementation or amendment. 1 of 7 FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 11/01/2023 04:22 PM INDEX NO. 303755/2016E NYSCEF DOC. NO. 37 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/01/2023 2. Defendant herein does not waive and does not intend to waive any objections he may have regarding plaintiff's use of any documents. Defendant expressly reserves: (a) all objections regarding the competency, privilege, relevance, materiality and admissibility of all documents produced and the contents thereof; (b) the right to object to Plaintiff's use of any of Defendant's Responses, in whole or in part, or to object to the subject matter covered thereby in any later stage or proceeding in this litigation or any other litigation, on any or all of the grounds set forth herein; (c) the right to object on any and all proper grounds, at any time, to other discovery procedures involving or relating to the subject matter of any documents produced by Defendant; and (d) all objections as to vagueness and ambiguity. 3. Privileged documents and communications responsive to a particular Request, if any such documents exist, will not be produced. If any document subject to the attorney-client privilege, the work product immunity doctrine or any other privilege or immunity is inadvertently produced, such production shall not be construed as a waiver of such privilege or immunity. 4. Nothing contained in any response to a particular Request shall be deemed an admission, concession or waiver by the Defendant of any contention with respect to the validity of any claim asserted by Plaintiff or to Plaintiff's standing or capacity to assert any claim. GENERAL OBJECTIONS The following General Objections apply to each of the Requests and shall have the same force and effect as if set forth in full in response to each individually numbered Request: 1. Defendant objects generally to the Requests to the extent that they seek information that is not relevant, is overbroad as to time and scope, are unduly burdensome, 2 of 7 FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 11/01/2023 04:22 PM INDEX NO. 303755/2016E NYSCEF DOC. NO. 37 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/01/2023 unintelligible, vague or ambiguous or seek to impose burdens or duties upon the Defendant that exceeds the scope of permissible discovery. 2. Defendant objects generally to the Requests to the extent that they are repetitive, redundant and or seek information already in Plaintiff's possession. 3. Defendant objects generally to the Requests to the extent that seek they infonnation protected from disclosure by applicable privileges or immunities, attorney- including client privilege, the attorney work product immunity or any other protection from discovery. Any inadvertent production of such information shall not be deemed a waiver of the applicable privilege or immunity. 4. Defendant objects generally to the Requests to the extent that they purport to seek information not in the possession, custody or control of the Defendant. 5. Defendant reserves all objections to the admissibility of any document produced in response to the Requests. Production of any document in response to the Requests does not constitute an admission by Defendants that such document is relevant to or admissible in this action. RESPONSES TO THE REQUESTS 1. Did you view the approximately 2 hours of video served by counsel for NEW YORK CITY HEALTH AND HOSPITALS CORP ORATION in its entirety? imSl'ONNE: Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defend ant herein states that he watched four separate surveillance videos that were provided by counsel for NEW YORK CITY HEALTH AND HOSPITALS CORPORATION and that each video provided was approximately thirty minutes. 2. Was the video that you just viewed different from any prior video that you ever viewed of the incident that occurred on January 3, 2016? 3 of 7 FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 11/01/2023 04:22 PM INDEX NO. 303755/2016E NYSCEF DOC. NO. 37 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/01/2023 R ESl'ONSE: Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant herein states that the only apparent difference in the surveillance video provided by NEW YORK CITY HEALTH AND HOSPITALS CORPORATION from the video that Defendant herein observed on or about January 3, 2016 is that in the video provided by NEW YORK CITY HEALTH AND HOSPITALS CORPORATION appears to have patients with blurred faces. Additionally, Defendant herein states that when he reviewed the initial surveillance video he did not watch the video in its entirety, and does not recall which portion of the video he watched on or about January 3, 2016. Defendant herein states he does not recall any other differences between the two videos. 3. If the current video is in any way different from the prior video, then state each and every difference that you observed or recall. RESPONSE: See response to 2. After viewing the current approximately 2-hour video in its entirety, has your memory been refreshed in any manner regarding the incident of January 3, 2016? RESPONNE: Objection as this request is not compliant with permissible questions as per the Hon. Danziger's May 11, 2023 Interim Order. Notwithstanding and subject to and without waiving the objections, Defendant states that his foregoing memory has not been refreshed. 4. After viewing the current approximately 2-hour video in its entirety would you change any of your testimony concerning the events of January 3, 2016 as you testified to at your deposition. RESPONSE: Objection as this request is not compliant with permissible questions as per the Hon. Danziger's May 11, 2023 Interim Order. Notwithstanding and 4 of 7 FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 11/01/2023 04:22 PM INDEX NO. 303755/2016E NYSCEF DOC. NO. 37 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/01/2023 subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant states that he would not change his deposition testimony. Dated: New York, New York October 30, 2023 Andrea Cohen, General Counsel New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation Attorney for Dr. Pronoy Roy 26d' 55 Water Street, Floor New York, NY 10041 Of Counsel: Dyan Kleinnum Tel: (646) 694-6762 File No. 2016-000348 To: Pena & Kahn 1250 Waters Place, Suite 901 Bronx, New York 10461 5 of 7 FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 11/01/2023 04:22 PM INDEX NO. 303755/2016E NYSCEF DOC. NO. 37 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/01/2023 VERIFICKfION STATE OF NEW YORK ) COUNTY OF BRONX I, PRONOY ROY, M.D., the undersigned, being duly sworn, depose and say: I I am a Defendant in the within action. I have read the foregoing Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's Interrogatories and know the contents thereof; and the same is true according to my own personal knowledge and belief, PRO OY ROY .D. Sworn to before me this day of ÚJt/t-r¾Ó6t 2023 Brandee GK Griffith Notary Public - State of New York NOTAh U C No. 01GR6203905 Qualified in Bronx Co int My Commission Expires Di DJ ) b 6 of 7 FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 11/01/2023 04:22 PM INDEX NO. 303755/2016E NYSCEF DOC. NO. 37 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/01/2023 STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF NEW YORK, SS.: The undersigned, an attorney admitted to practice in the Courts of New York State shows: That (s)he is employed in the office of the General Counsel of the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation and affinns this staternent to be true under the penalties of perjury, pursuant to Rule 2106 CPLR: That on the 30th day of October she served the annexed Response to Plaintiff s Interrogatories, Upon: Pena & Kahn 1250 Waters Place, Suite 901 Bronx, New York 10461 via NYSCEF. Dated: New York, New York October 30, 2023 yan inman 7 of 7