Article by Gitika Kapoor, Esq.

In Matter of Morquecho v. HMH Architectural Metal & Glass, 2024 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 423 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2024), the Supreme Court of New York, Kings County, addressed whether a respondent must be compelled to disclose necessary information against a party that the Petitioner wants to sue.

Eduardo Andrade Morquecho was an employee of HMH Architectural Metal & Glass. On August 21, 2023, he approached a delivery truck that arrived on the premises to assist with unloading the delivered material. As he began unloading, some of the material fell from the truck and injured him. Morquecho sought to bring a suit against the trucking company but lacked the necessary information including the name and address of the company. His employer HMH refused to share this information and assist in filing suit. In light of this refusal, Morquecho filed a petition seeking an order of Disclosure for Purposes of Bringing and Action Pursuant to CPLR Section 3102 (c).

CPLR Section 3102 (c) provides, “Before an action is commenced, disclosure to aid in bringing an action, to preserve information or to aid in arbitration, may be obtained, but only by court order.” Morquecho asserted that disclosure of the information concerning the accident was patently necessary to facilitate his suit against the delivery truck company. HHM did not oppose the petition.

In considering pre-action disclosure requests, the Court noted that the order mandating pre-action disclosure must be narrowly tailored. It relied on Mattocks v. White Motor Corp., 258 AD2d 628 (2d Dep’t. 1999), which provides that, “there should be full disclosure of all material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action.” The Court noted that in granting pre-action disclosure requests, the allegations of a prospective cause of action and the limited nature of the disclosure request must be considered. In addition, the Court relied on Leff v. Our Lady of Mercy Academy, 150 AD3d 1239, 1240 (2d Dep’t. 2017) where the Appellate Division granted pre-action disclosure in order “to allow a plaintiff to frame a complaint and to obtain the identity of the prospective defendants.”

In granting Morquecho’s Petition, the Court observed that HMH’s current refusal to disclose relevant information clearly hindered Morquecho’s ability to sue the company that contributed to his injuries. Therefore, the Court ordered disclosure of the incident report and the name and address of the delivery truck company.