Kennedy v. European American Bank

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kennedy v. European American Bank

199 A.D.2d 61, 605 N.Y.S.2d 861, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11725

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 9, 1993·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Karla Moskowitz, J.) , entered May 8, 1992, which, after jury trial, found in favor of defendant Dr. Ellyn Shander against [62]*62the plaintiff, and dismissed the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

This action was tried on the theory that plaintiff could orally waive the physician-patient privilege to the extent of non-medical disclosures as to her psychiatric care in the context of an employee assistance program. Now, for the first time on appeal, plaintiff argues that Connecticut law applied, that an oral waiver is not recognized in that State, and that other infirmities in the court’s charge warrant reversal. None of plaintiff’s arguments are preserved for appellate review, and further, we find no fundamental unfairness or prejudice to plaintiff warranting a new trial. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Rosenberger, Ross and Nardelli, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Karla Moskowitz, J.) , entered May 8, 1992, which, after jury trial, found in favor of defendant Dr. Ellyn Shander against [62]*62the plaintiff, and dismissed the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

This action was tried on the theory that plaintiff could orally waive the physician-patient privilege to the extent of non-medical disclosures as to her psychiatric care in the context of an employee assistance program. Now, for the first time on appeal, plaintiff argues that Connecticut law applied, that an oral waiver is not recognized in that State, and that other infirmities in the court’s charge warrant reversal. None of plaintiff’s arguments are preserved for appellate review, and further, we find no fundamental unfairness or prejudice to plaintiff warranting a new trial. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Rosenberger, Ross and Nardelli, JJ.

Kennedy v. European American Bank, 199 A.D.2d 61, 605 N.Y.S.2d 861, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11725 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

199 A.D.2d 61 (Kennedy v. European American Bank) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related