K. S. v. Incorparated Village of Garden City

245 A.D.2d 265, 666 N.Y.S.2d 8, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12079

This text of 245 A.D.2d 265 (K. S. v. Incorparated Village of Garden City) 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
K. S. v. Incorparated Village of Garden City, 245 A.D.2d 265, 666 N.Y.S.2d 8, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12079 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages, inter alia, for assault and sexual abuse, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McCarty, J.), dated November 18, 1996, which denied [266]*266their motion to discover the handwritten notes of the expert of the defendant Incorporated Village of Garden City.

Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof which denied that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was to compel the expert of the defendant Incorporated Village of Garden City to turn over the handwritten recorded statements of the infant plaintiffs and substituting therefor a provision granting that branch of the motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed, with costs to the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs are entitled to copies of those portions of the handwritten notes of the examining psychiatrist of the Incorporated Village of Garden City which contain the statements of the infant plaintiffs made to the examining psychiatrist and recorded by him for the purposes of this litigation (see, CPLR 3101 [e]; DiMichel v South Buffalo Ry. Co., 80 NY2d 184, 194, cert denied sub nom. Poole v Consolidated Rail Corp., 510 US 816; Sands v News Am. Publ., 161 AD2d 30, 40; Sullivan v New York City Tr. Auth., 109 AD2d 879, 880). The Village is not otherwise required to provide the plaintiffs with the psychiatrist’s notes upon which his detailed written report is based (see, Pernice v Devora, 238 AD2d 558; King Elecs. v American Natl. Fire Ins. Co., 232 AD2d 273; Weinberger v Lensclean Inc., 198 AD2d 58). Rosenblatt, J. P., O’Brien, Thompson, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

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

Related

DiMichel v. South Buffalo Railway Co.
80 N.Y.2d 184 (New York Court of Appeals, 1992)
Sullivan v. New York City Transit Authority
109 A.D.2d 879 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1985)
Sands v. News America Publishing Inc.
161 A.D.2d 30 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1990)
Weinberger v. Lensclean Inc.
198 A.D.2d 58 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1993)
King Electronics of Graham Ave., Inc. v. American National Fire Insurance
232 A.D.2d 273 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
Pernice v. Devora
238 A.D.2d 558 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
Poole v. Consolidated Rail Corp.
510 U.S. 816 (Supreme Court, 1993)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
245 A.D.2d 265, 666 N.Y.S.2d 8, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12079, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/k-s-v-incorparated-village-of-garden-city-nyappdiv-1997.