B.S. v. B.F.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

B.S. v. B.F.

140 A.D.3d 584, 33 N.Y.S.3d 694

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

DecidedJune 23, 2016

StatusPublished

This text of 140 A.D.3d 584 (B.S. v. B.F.) 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

B.S. v. B.F., 140 A.D.3d 584, 33 N.Y.S.3d 694 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Deborah A. Kaplan, J.), entered December 18, 2015, which, to the extent appealed from, denied defendant husband’s motion to compel discovery from plaintiff wife, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court providently exercised its discretion in denying defendant’s motion seeking records regarding plaintiff’s mental and medical health, since plaintiff did not waive the physician-patient privilege by making any claims or taking any positions that placed her physical or mental condition “in controversy” (CPLR 3121 [a]; see generally Wegman v Wegman, 37 NY2d 940, 941 [1975]; see also Proschold v Proschold, 114 Misc 2d 568, 569 [Sup Ct, Suffolk County 1982]). Her specification of her health conditions in her net worth statement did not place her health conditions in controversy, since such specification is required in a contested divorce proceeding (see 22 NYCRR 202.16 [b]; 22 NYCRR subtit D, ch III, subch A, forms; see also Proschold, 114 Misc 2d at 569). Nor did plaintiff’s denial of certain medical conditions in response to defendant’s allegations place those conditions in controversy (see Koump v Smith, 25 NY2d 287, 294 [1969]).

We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing.

Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Renwick, Manzanet-Daniels and Webber, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Deborah A. Kaplan, J.), entered December 18, 2015, which, to the extent appealed from, denied defendant husband’s motion to compel discovery from plaintiff wife, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court providently exercised its discretion in denying defendant’s motion seeking records regarding plaintiff’s mental and medical health, since plaintiff did not waive the physician-patient privilege by making any claims or taking any positions that placed her physical or mental condition “in controversy” (CPLR 3121 [a]; see generally Wegman v Wegman, 37 NY2d 940, 941 [1975]; see also Proschold v Proschold, 114 Misc 2d 568, 569 [Sup Ct, Suffolk County 1982]). Her specification of her health conditions in her net worth statement did not place her health conditions in controversy, since such specification is required in a contested divorce proceeding (see 22 NYCRR 202.16 [b]; 22 NYCRR subtit D, ch III, subch A, forms; see also Proschold, 114 Misc 2d at 569). Nor did plaintiff’s denial of certain medical conditions in response to defendant’s allegations place those conditions in controversy (see Koump v Smith, 25 NY2d 287, 294 [1969]).

We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing.

Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Renwick, Manzanet-Daniels and Webber, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

140 A.D.3d 584, 33 N.Y.S.3d 694, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bs-v-bf-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack