DeStrange v. Lind

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

DeStrange v. Lind

277 A.D.2d 344, 716 N.Y.S.2d 105, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12195

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

DecidedNovember 20, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by11 cases

This text of 277 A.D.2d 344 (DeStrange v. Lind) 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

DeStrange v. Lind, 277 A.D.2d 344, 716 N.Y.S.2d 105, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12195 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, the defendants appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Colabella, J.), entered September 27, 1999, as granted the plaintiffs cross motion for a protective order limiting the disclosure of her medical records to five years before the accrual of her cause of action herein. ,

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

By commencing this action to recover damages for medical malpractice, the plaintiff waived the physician-patient privilege with respect to her relevant past medical history (see, CPLR 3121; Coddington v Lisk, 249 AD2d 817). That waiver must be read in conjunction with the mandate of CPLR 3101 (a), which provides for disclosure of all matter “material and [345]*345necessary” to the defense of the action (see, Andon v 302-304 Mott St. Assocs., 94 NY2d 740). The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in limiting the defendants’ access to the plaintiffs past medical records to the five-year period before the alleged acts of malpractice in controversy, as the defendants failed to demonstrate that access to earlier medical records would result in the discovery of admissible or relevant evidence (see, King v Salvation Army, 240 AD2d 473; Manley v New York City Hous. Auth., 190 AD2d 600).

The defendants’ remaining contentions are without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Thompson, S. Miller and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, the defendants appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Colabella, J.), entered September 27, 1999, as granted the plaintiffs cross motion for a protective order limiting the disclosure of her medical records to five years before the accrual of her cause of action herein. ,

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

By commencing this action to recover damages for medical malpractice, the plaintiff waived the physician-patient privilege with respect to her relevant past medical history (see, CPLR 3121; Coddington v Lisk, 249 AD2d 817). That waiver must be read in conjunction with the mandate of CPLR 3101 (a), which provides for disclosure of all matter “material and [345]*345necessary” to the defense of the action (see, Andon v 302-304 Mott St. Assocs., 94 NY2d 740). The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in limiting the defendants’ access to the plaintiffs past medical records to the five-year period before the alleged acts of malpractice in controversy, as the defendants failed to demonstrate that access to earlier medical records would result in the discovery of admissible or relevant evidence (see, King v Salvation Army, 240 AD2d 473; Manley v New York City Hous. Auth., 190 AD2d 600).

The defendants’ remaining contentions are without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Thompson, S. Miller and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

277 A.D.2d 344, 716 N.Y.S.2d 105, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12195, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/destrange-v-lind-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack