Clark v. Pople

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Clark v. Pople

244 A.D.2d 958, 668 N.Y.S.2d 131, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12352

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

DecidedNovember 19, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 244 A.D.2d 958 (Clark v. Pople) 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

Clark v. Pople, 244 A.D.2d 958, 668 N.Y.S.2d 131, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12352 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously modified on the law and in the exercise of discretion and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum: Plaintiffs appeal from an order compelling them to furnish defendant with “a duly signed medical authorization unrestricted as to the date of the accident, the name of the physician, the hospitals or other health care providers,” without prejudice to a motion for a protective order to prevent disclosure of sensitive matters. We modify the order by directing that counsel for defendant, prior to serving a copy of such written authorization on any medical provider, notify plaintiffs’ attorney of the identity of such medical provider, to enable plaintiffs to move for a protective order if they be so advised. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Major, J.—Discovery.) Present—Denman, P. J., Hayes, Callahan and Fallon, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously modified on the law and in the exercise of discretion and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum: Plaintiffs appeal from an order compelling them to furnish defendant with “a duly signed medical authorization unrestricted as to the date of the accident, the name of the physician, the hospitals or other health care providers,” without prejudice to a motion for a protective order to prevent disclosure of sensitive matters. We modify the order by directing that counsel for defendant, prior to serving a copy of such written authorization on any medical provider, notify plaintiffs’ attorney of the identity of such medical provider, to enable plaintiffs to move for a protective order if they be so advised. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Major, J.—Discovery.) Present—Denman, P. J., Hayes, Callahan and Fallon, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

244 A.D.2d 958, 668 N.Y.S.2d 131, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12352, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clark-v-pople-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack