Schager v. Durland

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Schager v. Durland

286 A.D.2d 725, 730 N.Y.S.2d 455, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8532

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

DecidedSeptember 17, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 286 A.D.2d 725 (Schager v. Durland) 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

Schager v. Durland, 286 A.D.2d 725, 730 N.Y.S.2d 455, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8532 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants Richard Marcus and Marilyn Marcus appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Nastasi, J.), dated August 12, 2000, as denied their motion to compel the plaintiffs to provide authorizations to obtain certain medical and other records.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and the motion is granted.

The injured plaintiff placed his physical and mental condition in controversy. The Supreme Court therefore erred in denying the appellants’ motion (see, Prink v Rockefeller Ctr., 48 NY2d 309). Ritter, J. P., Altman, McGinity, Smith 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 personal injuries, etc., the defendants Richard Marcus and Marilyn Marcus appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Nastasi, J.), dated August 12, 2000, as denied their motion to compel the plaintiffs to provide authorizations to obtain certain medical and other records.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and the motion is granted.

The injured plaintiff placed his physical and mental condition in controversy. The Supreme Court therefore erred in denying the appellants’ motion (see, Prink v Rockefeller Ctr., 48 NY2d 309). Ritter, J. P., Altman, McGinity, Smith and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

286 A.D.2d 725, 730 N.Y.S.2d 455, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8532, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schager-v-durland-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack