Mancinelli v. Texas Eastern Transmission Corp.

34 A.D.2d 535, 308 N.Y.S.2d 882, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5258
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 26, 1970
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 34 A.D.2d 535 (Mancinelli v. Texas Eastern Transmission Corp.) 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
Mancinelli v. Texas Eastern Transmission Corp., 34 A.D.2d 535, 308 N.Y.S.2d 882, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5258 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1970).

Opinion

Order entered on or about November 19, 1969, unanimously reversed on the law, with $30 costs and disbursements to defendants-appellants, and the motion for inspection granted; said inspection to be held as suggested by the Attorney-General. Defendant in this negligence action sought an order to inspect and examine certain records of Harlem Valley State Hospital pursuant to sections 20 and 34 of the Mental Hygiene Law. The records in question pertain to plaintiff’s hospitalization some four years prior to the accident. ‘Special Term denied the application upon the ground that the records were privileged pursuant to CPLR 4504 (subd. [a]). Questions have arisen out of the distinctions between the two statutes, and no altogether satisfactory rule has been evolved (cf. Matter of Goddington, 307 N. Y. 181; Matter of Warrington [State of New York], 303 N. Y. 129). And in a proper case exploration in depth might be in order. Here, however, the question does not arise. The complaint alleges that plaintiff suffered, among other injuries, severe mental injuries and extensive psychological damage. He therefore puts in issue his mental and psychological condition following the accident, and his attribution of these conditions to the accident puts in issue whether or not they actually antedated the accident. Under these circumstances it is unequivocally held that the privilege is waived (Koump v. Smith, 25 N Y 2d 287, 294). Concur — Eager, J. P., Capozzoli, McGivern, Nunez and Steuer, JJ.

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

Related

Doe v. Roe
155 Misc. 2d 392 (New York Supreme Court, 1992)
Davis v. Ross
107 F.R.D. 326 (S.D. New York, 1985)
Cynthia B. v. New Rochelle Hospital Medical Center
458 N.E.2d 363 (New York Court of Appeals, 1983)
Campbell v. State
105 Misc. 2d 204 (New York State Court of Claims, 1980)
Watson v. State
53 A.D.2d 798 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1976)
Mattison v. Poulen
353 A.2d 327 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1976)
Josephs v. Oliver
48 A.D.2d 688 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1975)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
34 A.D.2d 535, 308 N.Y.S.2d 882, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5258, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mancinelli-v-texas-eastern-transmission-corp-nyappdiv-1970.