Benedicta Brito v. Rafael Gomez

CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedSeptember 10, 2019
Docket97Â SSM 14
StatusPublished

This text of Benedicta Brito v. Rafael Gomez (Benedicta Brito v. Rafael Gomez) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Benedicta Brito v. Rafael Gomez, (N.Y. 2019).

Opinion

State of New York MEMORANDUM Court of Appeals This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York Reports.

No. 97 SSM 14 Benedicta Brito, Respondent, v. Rafael Gomez et al., Appellants.

Submitted by Nicholas P. Hurzeler, for appellants. Submitted by Brian J. Isaac, for respondent.

MEMORANDUM:

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, the case remitted

to Supreme Court for further proceedings in accordance with this memorandum, and the

certified question answered in the negative.

-1- -2- SSM No. 14

Plaintiff affirmatively placed the condition of her knees into controversy through

allegations that the underlying accident caused difficulties in walking and standing that

affect her ambulatory capacity and resultant damages (see generally Arons v Jutkowitz, 9

NY3d 393, 409 [2007]; Dillenbeck v Hess, 73 NY2d 278, 287 [1989]). Under the

particular circumstances of this case, plaintiff therefore waived the physician-patient

privilege with respect to the prior treatment of her knees and the discovery sought by

authorizations pertaining to the treatment of plaintiff’s knees is “material and necessary”

to defendants’ defense of the action (CPLR 3101 [a]). Accordingly, Supreme Court erred

in denying defendants’ motion to compel plaintiff to provide discovery related to the prior

treatment of her knees.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules, order reversed, with costs, case remitted to Supreme Court, Bronx County, for further proceedings in accordance with the memorandum herein and certified question answered in the negative. Chief Judge DiFiore and Judges Rivera, Stein, Fahey, Garcia, Wilson and Feinman concur.

Decided September 10, 2019

-2-

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

Related

Arons v. Jutkowitz
880 N.E.2d 831 (New York Court of Appeals, 2007)
Dillenbeck v. Hess
536 N.E.2d 1126 (New York Court of Appeals, 1989)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Benedicta Brito v. Rafael Gomez, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/benedicta-brito-v-rafael-gomez-ny-2019.