Farrell v. McIntosh

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Farrell v. McIntosh

191 A.D.2d 409, 596 N.Y.S.2d 691, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1795

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

DecidedMarch 1, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 191 A.D.2d 409 (Farrell v. McIntosh) 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

Farrell v. McIntosh, 191 A.D.2d 409, 596 N.Y.S.2d 691, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1795 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Santucci, J.), dated January 23, 1991, which denied his motion to compel production of [410]*410medical and psychiatric records of the respondent Joan McIntosh, and allowed Joan McIntosh to amend her answer by deleting the affirmative defense of "mental incapacity/insanity”, and (2) so much of an order of the same court, dated January 2, 1992, as denied his motion for renewal of the motion to compel disclosure of the requested psychiatric records.

Ordered that the order dated January 23, 1991, is affirmed, and the order dated January 2, 1992, is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,

Ordered that the respondents, appearing separately and filing separate briefs, are awarded one bill of costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court’s conclusion that the respondent Joan McIntosh did not waive the physician-patient privilege with respect to the psychiatric records requested by the appellant (see, Dillenbeck v Hess, 73 NY2d 278; Koump v Smith, 25 NY2d 287).

We have considered the appellant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Bracken, J. P., Balletta, Ritter and Copertino, 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 personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Santucci, J.), dated January 23, 1991, which denied his motion to compel production of [410]*410medical and psychiatric records of the respondent Joan McIntosh, and allowed Joan McIntosh to amend her answer by deleting the affirmative defense of "mental incapacity/insanity”, and (2) so much of an order of the same court, dated January 2, 1992, as denied his motion for renewal of the motion to compel disclosure of the requested psychiatric records.

Ordered that the order dated January 23, 1991, is affirmed, and the order dated January 2, 1992, is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,

Ordered that the respondents, appearing separately and filing separate briefs, are awarded one bill of costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court’s conclusion that the respondent Joan McIntosh did not waive the physician-patient privilege with respect to the psychiatric records requested by the appellant (see, Dillenbeck v Hess, 73 NY2d 278; Koump v Smith, 25 NY2d 287).

We have considered the appellant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Bracken, J. P., Balletta, Ritter and Copertino, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

191 A.D.2d 409, 596 N.Y.S.2d 691, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1795, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/farrell-v-mcintosh-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack