Feder v. Staten Island Hospital

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Feder v. Staten Island Hospital

8 A.D.3d 141, 778 N.Y.S.2d 279, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8590

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 17, 2004·Published

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.), entered July 23, 2003, which, in a putative class action involving defendants’ alleged overcharges for copies of medical records, upon this Court’s order reversing an order that certified plaintiffs as a class and appointed a Special Referee to supervise disclosure (304 AD2d 470 [2003]), terminated the reference, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly terminated the reference to supervise disclosure on the ground that this Court’s reversal of the class certification order eliminated any need for class-related disclosure and thus any need for supervision. The motion court [142] correctly interpreted such reversal to be without leave to seek a recertification of the class upon completion of additional disclosure (compare e.g. Brandon v Chefetz, 106 AD2d 162, 171-172 [1985], and Katz v NVF Co., 100 AD2d 470, 476 [1984], with e.g. Hazelhurst v Brita Prods. Co., 295 AD2d 240, 241-242, 243 [2002]). We have considered and rejected plaintiffs’ other arguments. Concur—Saxe, J.P., Sullivan, Williams, Friedman and Marlow, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.), entered July 23, 2003, which, in a putative class action involving defendants’ alleged overcharges for copies of medical records, upon this Court’s order reversing an order that certified plaintiffs as a class and appointed a Special Referee to supervise disclosure (304 AD2d 470 [2003]), terminated the reference, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly terminated the reference to supervise disclosure on the ground that this Court’s reversal of the class certification order eliminated any need for class-related disclosure and thus any need for supervision. The motion court [142] correctly interpreted such reversal to be without leave to seek a recertification of the class upon completion of additional disclosure (compare e.g. Brandon v Chefetz, 106 AD2d 162, 171-172 [1985], and Katz v NVF Co., 100 AD2d 470, 476 [1984], with e.g. Hazelhurst v Brita Prods. Co., 295 AD2d 240, 241-242, 243 [2002]). We have considered and rejected plaintiffs’ other arguments. Concur—Saxe, J.P., Sullivan, Williams, Friedman and Marlow, JJ.

Feder v. Staten Island Hospital, 8 A.D.3d 141, 778 N.Y.S.2d 279, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8590 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

8 A.D.3d 141 (Feder v. Staten Island Hospital) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related