St. Clare v. Cattani

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

St. Clare v. Cattani

128 A.D.2d 766, 513 N.Y.S.2d 250, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 44453

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

DecidedMarch 23, 1987

StatusPublished

Cited by11 cases

This text of 128 A.D.2d 766 (St. Clare v. Cattani) 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

St. Clare v. Cattani, 128 A.D.2d 766, 513 N.Y.S.2d 250, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 44453 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries arising from alleged medical malpractice, the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an [767]*767order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Levine, J.), dated August 14, 1985, as denied those branches of his motion which were to compel the plaintiff to furnish written authorizations to him to obtain certain of her psychological and employment records.

Ordered that the order is modified, by deleting so much of the second decretal paragraph thereof as denied that branch of the defendant’s motion which was to compel the plaintiff to provide written authorizations for the records of Dr. Gisella Mankewicz, Dr. Harriet Michel, the Institute for Rational Emotive Therapy and for her employment records with Matthew Bender, and substituting therefor a provision granting that branch of the defendant’s motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs to the defendant, and the plaintiff’s time to provide the authorizations is extended until 20 days after service upon her of a copy of this decision and order, with notice of entry.

The plaintiff alleged in her amended complaint that the permanent facial scarring and disfigurement arising from the defendant’s malpractice caused her to develop "psychoneurosis manifested by phobias”. By this and other allegations in her bill of particulars, and statements made during her examination before trial, the plaintiff affirmatively placed her mental condition in controversy, which entitled the defendant to full disclosure regarding any "psychological treatment she may have received prior to or subsequent to the date of the alleged malpractice” (see, Daniele v Long Is. Jewish-Hillside Med. Center, 74 AD2d 814). Brown, J. P., Lawrence, Eiber and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

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

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries arising from alleged medical malpractice, the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an [767]*767order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Levine, J.), dated August 14, 1985, as denied those branches of his motion which were to compel the plaintiff to furnish written authorizations to him to obtain certain of her psychological and employment records.

Ordered that the order is modified, by deleting so much of the second decretal paragraph thereof as denied that branch of the defendant’s motion which was to compel the plaintiff to provide written authorizations for the records of Dr. Gisella Mankewicz, Dr. Harriet Michel, the Institute for Rational Emotive Therapy and for her employment records with Matthew Bender, and substituting therefor a provision granting that branch of the defendant’s motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs to the defendant, and the plaintiff’s time to provide the authorizations is extended until 20 days after service upon her of a copy of this decision and order, with notice of entry.

The plaintiff alleged in her amended complaint that the permanent facial scarring and disfigurement arising from the defendant’s malpractice caused her to develop "psychoneurosis manifested by phobias”. By this and other allegations in her bill of particulars, and statements made during her examination before trial, the plaintiff affirmatively placed her mental condition in controversy, which entitled the defendant to full disclosure regarding any "psychological treatment she may have received prior to or subsequent to the date of the alleged malpractice” (see, Daniele v Long Is. Jewish-Hillside Med. Center, 74 AD2d 814). Brown, J. P., Lawrence, Eiber and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

128 A.D.2d 766, 513 N.Y.S.2d 250, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 44453, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/st-clare-v-cattani-nyappdiv-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack