Billups v. Rizzo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Billups v. Rizzo

228 A.D.2d 587, 644 N.Y.2d 752, 644 N.Y.S.2d 752, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7199

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

DecidedJune 17, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 228 A.D.2d 587 (Billups v. Rizzo) 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

Billups v. Rizzo, 228 A.D.2d 587, 644 N.Y.2d 752, 644 N.Y.S.2d 752, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7199 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

[588]*588The petitioner was granted permission to review his mental health records in accordance with Mental Hygiene Law § 33.16 (b) (1), but his request for a copy of those records was denied. Mental Hygiene Law § 33.16 (b) (5) provides that a facility shall furnish a copy of any clinical record which a person is authorized to inspect. Both the right of access and the right to a copy of the clinical records are subject to the same limitations (see, Mental Hygiene Law § 33.16 [c]). Under the circumstances of this case, where the facility found no reason to deny the petitioner access to his records, its denial of his request for a copy of those records was arbitrary and capricious. O’Brien, J. P., Ritter, Pizzuto and Altman, JJ., concur.

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

[588]*588The petitioner was granted permission to review his mental health records in accordance with Mental Hygiene Law § 33.16 (b) (1), but his request for a copy of those records was denied. Mental Hygiene Law § 33.16 (b) (5) provides that a facility shall furnish a copy of any clinical record which a person is authorized to inspect. Both the right of access and the right to a copy of the clinical records are subject to the same limitations (see, Mental Hygiene Law § 33.16 [c]). Under the circumstances of this case, where the facility found no reason to deny the petitioner access to his records, its denial of his request for a copy of those records was arbitrary and capricious. O’Brien, J. P., Ritter, Pizzuto and Altman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

228 A.D.2d 587, 644 N.Y.2d 752, 644 N.Y.S.2d 752, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7199, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/billups-v-rizzo-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack