Galdon v. Ring

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Galdon v. Ring

261 A.D.2d 928, 690 N.Y.S.2d 794, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5017

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

DecidedMay 7, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 261 A.D.2d 928 (Galdon v. Ring) 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

Galdon v. Ring, 261 A.D.2d 928, 690 N.Y.S.2d 794, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5017 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Defendants contend that they are entitled to discover the identity of the treating physician of plaintiff Frances L. Galdón even though that physician will also serve as her expert witness in her medical malpractice trial against defendants. We disagree. Supreme Court properly permitted plaintiffs to serve redacted copies of medical records and reports omitting the name and address of that physician and the name of the hospital. The redaction was “an appropriate accommodation of the competing purposes of broad disclosure under CPLR 3121 (b) and protection of the expert’s identity under CPLR 3101 (d) (1) (i)” (Wagner v Kingston Hosp., 182 AD2d 616, 617; see, Ryan v Michelsen, 241 AD2d 434, 436; see also, Napierski v Finn, 229 AD2d 869, 870-871). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Cos-grove, J. — Discovery.) Present — Pine, J. P., Hayes, Pigott, Jr., Scudder and Balio, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Defendants contend that they are entitled to discover the identity of the treating physician of plaintiff Frances L. Galdón even though that physician will also serve as her expert witness in her medical malpractice trial against defendants. We disagree. Supreme Court properly permitted plaintiffs to serve redacted copies of medical records and reports omitting the name and address of that physician and the name of the hospital. The redaction was “an appropriate accommodation of the competing purposes of broad disclosure under CPLR 3121 (b) and protection of the expert’s identity under CPLR 3101 (d) (1) (i)” (Wagner v Kingston Hosp., 182 AD2d 616, 617; see, Ryan v Michelsen, 241 AD2d 434, 436; see also, Napierski v Finn, 229 AD2d 869, 870-871). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Cos-grove, J. — Discovery.) Present — Pine, J. P., Hayes, Pigott, Jr., Scudder and Balio, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

261 A.D.2d 928, 690 N.Y.S.2d 794, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5017, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/galdon-v-ring-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack