Snyder v. Asher

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Snyder v. Asher

2017 NY Slip Op 6803, 153 A.D.3d 1647, 60 N.Y.S.3d 881

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

DecidedSeptember 29, 2017

Docket1077 CA 17-00383

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 6803 (Snyder v. Asher) 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

Snyder v. Asher, 2017 NY Slip Op 6803, 153 A.D.3d 1647, 60 N.Y.S.3d 881 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Genesee County (Emilio L. Colaiacovo, J.), entered October 28, 2016. The order, insofar as appealed from, granted the motion of defendants insofar as it sought to compel plaintiff to provide unlimited authorizations for primary care, Social Security disability and pharmaceutical records.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously modified on the law by denying the motion to the extent that defendants seek unlimited authorizations for plaintiff’s primary care, Social Security disability, and pharmaceutical records, and granting the motion to the extent that defendants seek an in camera review of those records, and as modified the order is affirmed without costs, and the matter is remitted to Supreme Court, Genesee County, for further proceedings in accordance with the following memorandum: In this medical malpractice action, plaintiff appeals from an order that granted defendants’ motion insofar as defendants sought to compel her to provide unlimited authorizations for primary care, Social Security disability, and pharmaceutical records. *1648 Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, based upon the record before us, we conclude that those records are “material and necessary” to the defense of the action inasmuch as they are likely to contain relevant information about plaintiff’s prior medical conditions (CPLR 3101 [a]; see Nichter v Erie County Med. Ctr. Corp., 93 AD3d 1337, 1338 [2012]). We note, however, that defendants in the alternative sought an in camera review of those records, and we agree with plaintiff that Supreme Court should have granted that alternative relief. We thus conclude that “the records should not be released to defendants until the court has conducted an in camera review thereof, so that irrelevant information is redacted” (Nichter, 93 AD3d at 1338; see generally Barnes v Habuda, 118 AD3d 1443, 1444 [2014]). We therefore modify the order accordingly, and we remit the matter to Supreme Court for an in camera review of the subject records and the redaction of any irrelevant information.

Present — Carni, J.P., Lindley, NeMoyer, Curran and Troutman, JJ.

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

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Genesee County (Emilio L. Colaiacovo, J.), entered October 28, 2016. The order, insofar as appealed from, granted the motion of defendants insofar as it sought to compel plaintiff to provide unlimited authorizations for primary care, Social Security disability and pharmaceutical records.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously modified on the law by denying the motion to the extent that defendants seek unlimited authorizations for plaintiff’s primary care, Social Security disability, and pharmaceutical records, and granting the motion to the extent that defendants seek an in camera review of those records, and as modified the order is affirmed without costs, and the matter is remitted to Supreme Court, Genesee County, for further proceedings in accordance with the following memorandum: In this medical malpractice action, plaintiff appeals from an order that granted defendants’ motion insofar as defendants sought to compel her to provide unlimited authorizations for primary care, Social Security disability, and pharmaceutical records. *1648 Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, based upon the record before us, we conclude that those records are “material and necessary” to the defense of the action inasmuch as they are likely to contain relevant information about plaintiff’s prior medical conditions (CPLR 3101 [a]; see Nichter v Erie County Med. Ctr. Corp., 93 AD3d 1337, 1338 [2012]). We note, however, that defendants in the alternative sought an in camera review of those records, and we agree with plaintiff that Supreme Court should have granted that alternative relief. We thus conclude that “the records should not be released to defendants until the court has conducted an in camera review thereof, so that irrelevant information is redacted” (Nichter, 93 AD3d at 1338; see generally Barnes v Habuda, 118 AD3d 1443, 1444 [2014]). We therefore modify the order accordingly, and we remit the matter to Supreme Court for an in camera review of the subject records and the redaction of any irrelevant information.

Present — Carni, J.P., Lindley, NeMoyer, Curran and Troutman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 6803, 153 A.D.3d 1647, 60 N.Y.S.3d 881, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/snyder-v-asher-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack