Conlin v. Birritella
This text of 244 A.D.2d 381 (Conlin v. Birritella) 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.
Opinion
—In an action, inter alia, to re[382]*382cover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Rudolph, J.), entered November 8, 1996, which denied their motion to direct the defendants to provide authorizations for the release of certain medical records pursuant to CPLR 3121 (a).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
A party seeking to inspect a defendant’s hospital or medical records must first demonstrate that the defendant’s physical condition is “in controversy” within the meaning of CPLR 3121 (a) (see, Dillenbeck v Hess, 73 NY2d 278, 286-287; Koump v Smith, 25 NY2d 287, 300; Navedo v Nichols, 233 AD2d 378). Even if the party seeking the information satisfies that initial burden, discovery may still be precluded if the requested information is privileged (see, CPLR 3101, 4504).
Here, the plaintiffs failed to sustain their initial burden of demonstrating that the defendant Peter Birritella’s physical condition at the time of the accident was “in controversy”. In addition, the physician-patient privilege has been validly asserted and has not been waived (see, Navedo v Nichols, supra). Miller, J. P., Ritter, Sullivan, Santucci and McGinity, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
244 A.D.2d 381, 665 N.Y.S.2d 550, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11275, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/conlin-v-birritella-nyappdiv-1997.