Casimiro v. Thayer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Casimiro v. Thayer

217 A.D.2d 951, 629 N.Y.S.2d 897, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8373

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

DecidedJuly 14, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 217 A.D.2d 951 (Casimiro v. Thayer) 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

Casimiro v. Thayer, 217 A.D.2d 951, 629 N.Y.S.2d 897, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8373 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in granting plaintiff’s motion to compel disclosure of hospital records concerning treatment received by Chris S. Thayer (defendant) following the motor vehicle accident that is the subject of this litigation and in denying defendant’s cross motion for a protective order. Because defendant invoked the physician-patient privilege and did not make affirmative claims that waived it, those records are not subject to disclosure (see, Dillenbeck v Hess, 73 NY2d 278, 286-288; Schenk v Devall, 205 AD2d 900; Schnobrich v Schnobrich, 198 AD2d 850). The testimony of defendant at his examination before trial that he could not recall the accident and that his doctor told him that he had retrograde amnesia did not place his medical condition in controversy; that condition was not asserted as an excuse for his conduct (see, Dillenbeck v Hess, supra, at 286-288). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Hayes, J.—Discovery.) Present—Denman, P. J., Pine, Callahan, Doerr and Balio, JJ.

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

Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in granting plaintiff’s motion to compel disclosure of hospital records concerning treatment received by Chris S. Thayer (defendant) following the motor vehicle accident that is the subject of this litigation and in denying defendant’s cross motion for a protective order. Because defendant invoked the physician-patient privilege and did not make affirmative claims that waived it, those records are not subject to disclosure (see, Dillenbeck v Hess, 73 NY2d 278, 286-288; Schenk v Devall, 205 AD2d 900; Schnobrich v Schnobrich, 198 AD2d 850). The testimony of defendant at his examination before trial that he could not recall the accident and that his doctor told him that he had retrograde amnesia did not place his medical condition in controversy; that condition was not asserted as an excuse for his conduct (see, Dillenbeck v Hess, supra, at 286-288). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Hayes, J.—Discovery.) Present—Denman, P. J., Pine, Callahan, Doerr and Balio, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

217 A.D.2d 951, 629 N.Y.S.2d 897, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8373, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/casimiro-v-thayer-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack