Loose v. Penfield Volunteer Emergency Ambulance Service, Inc.

222 A.D.2d 1080, 635 N.Y.S.2d 839, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14158
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 22, 1995
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 222 A.D.2d 1080 (Loose v. Penfield Volunteer Emergency Ambulance Service, Inc.) 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
Loose v. Penfield Volunteer Emergency Ambulance Service, Inc., 222 A.D.2d 1080, 635 N.Y.S.2d 839, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14158 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Opinion

—Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum: Supreme Court properly determined that documents prepared by defendant Southeast Quadrant Mobile Critical Care Unit, Inc., in its investigation of the death of plaintiffs decedent are not protected from discovery by Public Health Law § 3006. That section requires ambulance services and advanced life support first response services to establish quality improvement committees by 1997, and protects the records and actions of those committees from disclosure. We agree with the court that the record does not establish that the documents in question were generated in connection with a quality improvement program required by the statute (see generally, Elmer v State of New York, 179 AD2d 1000, 1001).

We further conclude, however, that the court erred in granting plaintiffs motion insofar as it sought discovery of the reports prepared by employees of Penfield Volunteer Emergency Ambulance Service, Inc. Those reports were materials prepared in anticipation of litigation, and thus were protected from disclosure under CPLR 3101 (d) (2). The record does not support plaintiffs contention that depositions of the employees who prepared the reports would not provide plaintiff with the substantial equivalent of the information contained in them.

We, therefore, modify the order on appeal by vacating the third ordering paragraph, and otherwise affirm. (Appeals from Order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Siracuse, J.— [1081]*1081Discovery.) Present — Denman, P. J., Lawton, Wesley, Balio and Davis, JJ.

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

Related

Mong v. Children's Hospital of Buffalo
259 A.D.2d 1038 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
Hannold v. First Baptist Church
254 A.D.2d 746 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
222 A.D.2d 1080, 635 N.Y.S.2d 839, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14158, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/loose-v-penfield-volunteer-emergency-ambulance-service-inc-nyappdiv-1995.