Marriott International, Inc. v. Lonny's Hacking Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Marriott International, Inc. v. Lonny's Hacking Corp.

262 A.D.2d 10, 690 N.Y.S.2d 569, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6140

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

DecidedJune 1, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by11 cases

This text of 262 A.D.2d 10 (Marriott International, Inc. v. Lonny's Hacking 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

Marriott International, Inc. v. Lonny's Hacking Corp., 262 A.D.2d 10, 690 N.Y.S.2d 569, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6140 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan Madden, J.), entered March 26, 1998, which, inter alia, directed defendant Asanaw M. Shiferaw to turn over his medical records to the court for in camera inspection, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as taken from a nonappealable paper.

[11]*11No appeal lies as of right from an order deferring determination of a motion to compel discovery until after the motion court conducts an in camera review of materials claimed to be privileged because such an order does not affect a substantial right within the meaning of CPLR 5701 (a) (2) (v) (see, Garcia v Montefiore Med. Ctr., 209 AD2d 208, 209). In any event, were we sua sponte to grant leave to appeal, we would affirm. While defendant Shiferaw’s medical records are privileged and confidential to the extent that they contain medical information and to that extent may not be divulged absent an express waiver (CPLR 4504 [a]), co-defendants are entitled to any non-medical information in those medical records. As such, the proper procedure was precisely that utilized by the motion court, namely, to conduct an in camera inspection and to redact those portions of the medical records containing medical information (see, Garcia v Montefiore Med. Ctr., 209 AD2d, supra, at 209; see also, Lee v New York City Tr. Auth., 257 AD2d 611). Concur — Ellerin, P. J., Nardelli, Williams, Saxe and Friedman, JJ.

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

—Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan Madden, J.), entered March 26, 1998, which, inter alia, directed defendant Asanaw M. Shiferaw to turn over his medical records to the court for in camera inspection, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as taken from a nonappealable paper.

[11]*11No appeal lies as of right from an order deferring determination of a motion to compel discovery until after the motion court conducts an in camera review of materials claimed to be privileged because such an order does not affect a substantial right within the meaning of CPLR 5701 (a) (2) (v) (see, Garcia v Montefiore Med. Ctr., 209 AD2d 208, 209). In any event, were we sua sponte to grant leave to appeal, we would affirm. While defendant Shiferaw’s medical records are privileged and confidential to the extent that they contain medical information and to that extent may not be divulged absent an express waiver (CPLR 4504 [a]), co-defendants are entitled to any non-medical information in those medical records. As such, the proper procedure was precisely that utilized by the motion court, namely, to conduct an in camera inspection and to redact those portions of the medical records containing medical information (see, Garcia v Montefiore Med. Ctr., 209 AD2d, supra, at 209; see also, Lee v New York City Tr. Auth., 257 AD2d 611). Concur — Ellerin, P. J., Nardelli, Williams, Saxe and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

262 A.D.2d 10, 690 N.Y.S.2d 569, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6140, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marriott-international-inc-v-lonnys-hacking-corp-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack