Applegate v. Hirsch

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Applegate v. Hirsch

245 A.D.2d 213, 665 N.Y.S.2d 903, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13405

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedDecember 30, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 245 A.D.2d 213 (Applegate v. Hirsch) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Applegate v. Hirsch, 245 A.D.2d 213, 665 N.Y.S.2d 903, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13405 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Lowe, III, J.), entered October 17, 1994, which denied the application to direct respondent to turn over certain autopsy records and granted the cross motion to dismiss the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The records of the autopsy performed by the Office of the New York City Chief Medical Examiner are exempt from disclosure under New York City Charter § 557 (g). Matter of Diaz v Lukash (82 NY2d 211), relied upon by petitioner, does not require such disclosure, inasmuch as the petitioner in Diaz was not seeking records from a Medical Examiner in New York City (see, Matter of Mitchell v Borakove, 225 AD2d 435, appeal dismissed 88 NY2d 919). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Rosenberger, Wallach and Nardelli, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Lowe, III, J.), entered October 17, 1994, which denied the application to direct respondent to turn over certain autopsy records and granted the cross motion to dismiss the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The records of the autopsy performed by the Office of the New York City Chief Medical Examiner are exempt from disclosure under New York City Charter § 557 (g). Matter of Diaz v Lukash (82 NY2d 211), relied upon by petitioner, does not require such disclosure, inasmuch as the petitioner in Diaz was not seeking records from a Medical Examiner in New York City (see, Matter of Mitchell v Borakove, 225 AD2d 435, appeal dismissed 88 NY2d 919). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Rosenberger, Wallach and Nardelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

245 A.D.2d 213, 665 N.Y.S.2d 903, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13405, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/applegate-v-hirsch-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack