Molesi v. Rubenstein

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Molesi v. Rubenstein

294 A.D.2d 546, 742 N.Y.S.2d 881, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5560

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

DecidedMay 28, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 294 A.D.2d 546 (Molesi v. Rubenstein) 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

Molesi v. Rubenstein, 294 A.D.2d 546, 742 N.Y.S.2d 881, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5560 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, etc., the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Lifson, J.), dated November 7, 2001, as, upon reconsideration of an order of the same court, dated October 5, 2001, adhered to its original determination denying that branch of their motion which was to compel the plaintiff Joanne Molesi to provide certain medical authorizations in response to their demands.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, with costs, and upon reconsideration, that branch of the motion which was to compel the plaintiff Joanne Molesi to provide certain medical authorizations in response to the defendants’ demands is granted.

Since the plaintiff Joanne Molesi placed her mental condition in controversy, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the defendants’ motion which was to compel her to provide certain medical authorizations allowing them to obtain medical records relating to that condition (see Prink v Rockefeller Ctr., 48 NY2d 309; Koump v Smith, 25 NY2d 287, 294; Schager v Durland, 286 AD2d 725; Ellerin v Bentley’s, 266 AD2d 259). Ritter, J.P., Florio, Goldstein, Luciano and Cozier, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, etc., the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Lifson, J.), dated November 7, 2001, as, upon reconsideration of an order of the same court, dated October 5, 2001, adhered to its original determination denying that branch of their motion which was to compel the plaintiff Joanne Molesi to provide certain medical authorizations in response to their demands.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, with costs, and upon reconsideration, that branch of the motion which was to compel the plaintiff Joanne Molesi to provide certain medical authorizations in response to the defendants’ demands is granted.

Since the plaintiff Joanne Molesi placed her mental condition in controversy, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the defendants’ motion which was to compel her to provide certain medical authorizations allowing them to obtain medical records relating to that condition (see Prink v Rockefeller Ctr., 48 NY2d 309; Koump v Smith, 25 NY2d 287, 294; Schager v Durland, 286 AD2d 725; Ellerin v Bentley’s, 266 AD2d 259). Ritter, J.P., Florio, Goldstein, Luciano and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

294 A.D.2d 546, 742 N.Y.S.2d 881, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5560, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/molesi-v-rubenstein-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack