QUILTY, PAMELA J. v. CORMIER, DANIELLE J.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

QUILTY, PAMELA J. v. CORMIER, DANIELLE J.

115 A.D.3d 1229, 982 N.Y.S.2d 637

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

DecidedMarch 21, 2014

DocketCA 13-01666

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 115 A.D.3d 1229 (QUILTY, PAMELA J. v. CORMIER, DANIELLE J.) 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

QUILTY, PAMELA J. v. CORMIER, DANIELLE J., 115 A.D.3d 1229, 982 N.Y.S.2d 637 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

*1230 Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County (Brian F. DeJoseph, J.), entered December 7, 2012. The order granted defendant’s motion to compel plaintiff to provide unrestricted medical record authorizations.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this personal injury action seeking damages for injuries she allegedly sustained in a motor vehicle accident. Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, Supreme Court properly granted defendant’s motion to compel plaintiff to provide unrestricted medical record authorizations inasmuch as she failed to comply with a stipulated order directing her to do so by a certain date. Notably, plaintiff does not contest the validity of that stipulated order. “[UJnless public policy is affronted, parties to a civil dispute are free to chart their own litigation course . . . They ‘may fashion the basis upon which a particular controversy will be resolved . . . and in doing so ‘[t]hey may stipulate away . . . rights’ ” (Mitchell v New York Hosp., 61 NY2d 208, 214 [1984]; see generally Hann v Black, 96 AD3d 1503, 1504 [2012]). We nevertheless note that, at oral argument, defendant’s counsel agreed that the records may first be submitted to the court for an in camera review to determine their relevancy.

Present — Scudder, PJ., Smith, Carni, Lindley and Sconiers, JJ.

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

*1230 Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County (Brian F. DeJoseph, J.), entered December 7, 2012. The order granted defendant’s motion to compel plaintiff to provide unrestricted medical record authorizations.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this personal injury action seeking damages for injuries she allegedly sustained in a motor vehicle accident. Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, Supreme Court properly granted defendant’s motion to compel plaintiff to provide unrestricted medical record authorizations inasmuch as she failed to comply with a stipulated order directing her to do so by a certain date. Notably, plaintiff does not contest the validity of that stipulated order. “[UJnless public policy is affronted, parties to a civil dispute are free to chart their own litigation course . . . They ‘may fashion the basis upon which a particular controversy will be resolved . . . and in doing so ‘[t]hey may stipulate away . . . rights’ ” (Mitchell v New York Hosp., 61 NY2d 208, 214 [1984]; see generally Hann v Black, 96 AD3d 1503, 1504 [2012]). We nevertheless note that, at oral argument, defendant’s counsel agreed that the records may first be submitted to the court for an in camera review to determine their relevancy.

Present — Scudder, PJ., Smith, Carni, Lindley and Sconiers, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

115 A.D.3d 1229, 982 N.Y.S.2d 637, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/quilty-pamela-j-v-cormier-danielle-j-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack