Di Chiara v. Kaleida Health

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Di Chiara v. Kaleida Health

306 A.D.2d 901, 761 N.Y.S.2d 907, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6765

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

DecidedJune 13, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 306 A.D.2d 901 (Di Chiara v. Kaleida Health) 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

Di Chiara v. Kaleida Health, 306 A.D.2d 901, 761 N.Y.S.2d 907, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6765 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from an order of Supreme Court, Erie County (Mintz, J.), entered March 27, 2002, which denied the motion of plaintiffs to compel nonparty employees of defendant Kaleida Health to submit to further depositions and answer questions regarding statements made at a quality assurance review meeting.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed with costs.

Memorandum: The order denying plaintiffs’ motion to compel nonparty employees of defendant Kaleida Health (Kaleida). to submit to further depositions and answer questions regarding statements made at Kaleida’s quality assurance review meeting is not appealable as of right (see King v Salvation Army, 240 AD2d 473 [1997]; Andersen v Cornell Univ., 225 AD2d 946 [902]*902[1996]). In the exercise of our discretion, we treat the notice of appeal as an application for permission to appeal and grant such permission (see CPLR 5701 [c]; Roggow v Walker, 303 AD2d 1003 [2003]). Supreme Court properly denied plaintiffs’ motion. Statements made by nonparty Kaleida employees at Kaleida’s quality assurance review meeting are protected from disclosure pursuant to Education Law § 6527 (3) (see Lakshmanan v North Shore Univ. Hosp., 202 AD2d 398, 399 [1994]; Lenard v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 83 AD2d 860, 860-861 [1981] ). Present — Pigott, Jr., P.J., Green, Wisner, Burns and Gorski, JJ.

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

—Appeal from an order of Supreme Court, Erie County (Mintz, J.), entered March 27, 2002, which denied the motion of plaintiffs to compel nonparty employees of defendant Kaleida Health to submit to further depositions and answer questions regarding statements made at a quality assurance review meeting.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed with costs.

Memorandum: The order denying plaintiffs’ motion to compel nonparty employees of defendant Kaleida Health (Kaleida). to submit to further depositions and answer questions regarding statements made at Kaleida’s quality assurance review meeting is not appealable as of right (see King v Salvation Army, 240 AD2d 473 [1997]; Andersen v Cornell Univ., 225 AD2d 946 [902]*902[1996]). In the exercise of our discretion, we treat the notice of appeal as an application for permission to appeal and grant such permission (see CPLR 5701 [c]; Roggow v Walker, 303 AD2d 1003 [2003]). Supreme Court properly denied plaintiffs’ motion. Statements made by nonparty Kaleida employees at Kaleida’s quality assurance review meeting are protected from disclosure pursuant to Education Law § 6527 (3) (see Lakshmanan v North Shore Univ. Hosp., 202 AD2d 398, 399 [1994]; Lenard v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 83 AD2d 860, 860-861 [1981] ). Present — Pigott, Jr., P.J., Green, Wisner, Burns and Gorski, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

306 A.D.2d 901, 761 N.Y.S.2d 907, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6765, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/di-chiara-v-kaleida-health-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack