Rivera v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rivera v. New York City Transit Authority

71 A.D.3d 438, 894 N.Y.S.2d 754

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

DecidedMarch 4, 2010

StatusPublished

This text of 71 A.D.3d 438 (Rivera v. New York City Transit Authority) 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

Rivera v. New York City Transit Authority, 71 A.D.3d 438, 894 N.Y.S.2d 754 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold B. Beeler, J.), entered on or about March 16, 2009, which, insofar as appealed from, granted plaintiff’s motion to strike defendants’ answer for failure to comply with discovery demands only to the extent of directing defendants to produce Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act authorizations for the records of 20 doctors and medical facilities requested by plaintiff, unanimously reversed, on the facts, without costs, and the motion denied.

While defendant Batista waived the physician-patient privilege with respect to his physical condition by asserting the affirmative defense of unanticipated medical emergency (CPLR 3121 [a]; 4504 [a]; Rivera v New York City Tr. Auth., 11 AD3d 333 [2004]; Koump v Smith, 25 NY2d 287, 294 [1969]), plaintiff failed to demonstrate the relevance of Batista’s postaccident medical records to the condition that allegedly caused the accident (CPLR 3101 [a]; see Allen v Crowell-Collier Publ. Co., 21 NY2d 403 [1968]). Concur — Andrias, J.P., Nardelli, Catterson, DeGrasse and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold B. Beeler, J.), entered on or about March 16, 2009, which, insofar as appealed from, granted plaintiff’s motion to strike defendants’ answer for failure to comply with discovery demands only to the extent of directing defendants to produce Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act authorizations for the records of 20 doctors and medical facilities requested by plaintiff, unanimously reversed, on the facts, without costs, and the motion denied.

While defendant Batista waived the physician-patient privilege with respect to his physical condition by asserting the affirmative defense of unanticipated medical emergency (CPLR 3121 [a]; 4504 [a]; Rivera v New York City Tr. Auth., 11 AD3d 333 [2004]; Koump v Smith, 25 NY2d 287, 294 [1969]), plaintiff failed to demonstrate the relevance of Batista’s postaccident medical records to the condition that allegedly caused the accident (CPLR 3101 [a]; see Allen v Crowell-Collier Publ. Co., 21 NY2d 403 [1968]). Concur — Andrias, J.P., Nardelli, Catterson, DeGrasse and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

71 A.D.3d 438, 894 N.Y.S.2d 754, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rivera-v-new-york-city-transit-authority-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack