Diaz v. Lukash

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Diaz v. Lukash

228 A.D.2d 501, 644 N.Y.2d 300, 644 N.Y.S.2d 300, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6625

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

DecidedJune 10, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 228 A.D.2d 501 (Diaz v. Lukash) 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

Diaz v. Lukash, 228 A.D.2d 501, 644 N.Y.2d 300, 644 N.Y.S.2d 300, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6625 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

[502]*502The relevant facts of this case are set forth in the opinion of the Court of Appeals in Matter of Diaz v Lukash (82 NY2d 211, supra), and will not be repeated here. The Court of Appeals directed the Supreme Court, Nassau County, to "fashion an appropriate order to balance any privacy concerns and [the petitioner’s] interest in the records” (Matter of Diaz v Lukash, 82 NY2d 211, 218, supra). The Supreme Court, Nassau County (Burke, J.), ordered the production of the autopsy reports with all identifying information redacted.

It is clear that the documents, if produced in accordance with the judgment of the Supreme Court, are of no use to the petitioner. The autopsy reports at issue are of use to the petitioner only if, upon reviewing them, the petitioner’s expert can seek discovery from the decedents’ treating physicians or hospitals to determine whether any of the decedents had been taking a heart drug known as lidocaine prior to death and, if so, in what amounts. We therefore modify the judgment of the Supreme Court to provide the petitioner with a method of identifying the reports while still protecting the identity of the decedents from disclosure. Bracken, J. P., Rosenblatt, Thompson and Copertino, JJ., concur.

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

[502]*502The relevant facts of this case are set forth in the opinion of the Court of Appeals in Matter of Diaz v Lukash (82 NY2d 211, supra), and will not be repeated here. The Court of Appeals directed the Supreme Court, Nassau County, to "fashion an appropriate order to balance any privacy concerns and [the petitioner’s] interest in the records” (Matter of Diaz v Lukash, 82 NY2d 211, 218, supra). The Supreme Court, Nassau County (Burke, J.), ordered the production of the autopsy reports with all identifying information redacted.

It is clear that the documents, if produced in accordance with the judgment of the Supreme Court, are of no use to the petitioner. The autopsy reports at issue are of use to the petitioner only if, upon reviewing them, the petitioner’s expert can seek discovery from the decedents’ treating physicians or hospitals to determine whether any of the decedents had been taking a heart drug known as lidocaine prior to death and, if so, in what amounts. We therefore modify the judgment of the Supreme Court to provide the petitioner with a method of identifying the reports while still protecting the identity of the decedents from disclosure. Bracken, J. P., Rosenblatt, Thompson and Copertino, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

228 A.D.2d 501, 644 N.Y.2d 300, 644 N.Y.S.2d 300, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6625, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/diaz-v-lukash-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack