- Court
- New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department
- Case
- Travelers Excess & Surplus Lines Co. v. Via Trivio Corp.
- Date
- June 3, 2026
- Slip Op. No.
- 2026 NY Slip Op 03468
Background
Plaintiff Travelers Excess & Surplus Lines Company commenced this subrogation action against Crown Deli, Inc. and another defendant to recover damages paid to its insured, Chatam Management Co., Inc., for fire damage to real property. Plaintiff alleged that a March 3, 2019 fire was caused by the negligent operation of a grill and cooking areas by Crown Deli’s nonparty owner, who was allegedly in an impaired or intoxicated state at the time.
Plaintiff moved to compel Crown Deli to provide authorizations from its nonparty owner to obtain his blood alcohol content (BAC) test results from the date of the fire and records of his purchases at a club he visited the night before. Supreme Court, Nassau County (Danielle M. Peterson, J.), granted the motion. Crown Deli appealed.
Holding
The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed and denied the motion, on the law and in the exercise of discretion, with costs. The Court held that the plaintiff improperly sought to obtain a nonparty’s personal records by compelling the corporate defendant to provide authorizations on the nonparty’s behalf. Under CPLR 3101(a)(4), the proper mechanism for obtaining discovery from a nonparty is the issuance of a subpoena with notice, citing Matter of Kapon v. Koch, 23 NY3d 32, 36. The corporate party could not be compelled to execute authorizations on behalf of its individual owner. Plaintiff should have served the owner directly with a nonparty subpoena.
Takeaways
This decision draws a clear procedural distinction between party discovery and nonparty discovery. When a corporate defendant’s individual owner is not personally named as a party, his personal records—including medical records and financial transaction records—must be obtained through nonparty discovery mechanisms (subpoena with notice under CPLR 3101[a][4]), not through an order compelling the corporation to provide authorizations. A corporation cannot be required to act as an intermediary for obtaining its officers’ personal records.
Why It Matters
Litigators seeking personal records of corporate officers who are not individually named as defendants must use the proper procedural vehicle. This case prevents the circumvention of nonparty protections by using the corporate defendant as a conduit. The distinction has practical significance because nonparty subpoenas carry their own protective framework, including the right of the nonparty to move to quash. Plaintiffs in subrogation and negligence actions should name individual actors as parties if they intend to seek their personal records, or serve nonparty subpoenas directly on the individuals rather than attempting to compel authorizations through the corporate entity.