Statt v. Goldstein

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Statt v. Goldstein

191 A.D.2d 963, 595 N.Y.S.2d 701

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

DecidedMarch 12, 1993

DocketAppeal No. 2

StatusPublished

This text of 191 A.D.2d 963 (Statt v. Goldstein) 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

Statt v. Goldstein, 191 A.D.2d 963, 595 N.Y.S.2d 701 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal and cross appeal unanimously dismissed without costs. Memorandum: In this action alleging social worker malpractice and negligence, defendant demanded disclosure of, inter alia, the records and notes of plaintiffs treating psychiatrist. Claiming privilege, plaintiff moved for a protective order, and defendant cross-moved to compel disclosure. Supreme Court deferred determination of the motion and cross motion pending an in camera review of the psychiatrist’s records and notes. Defendant appeals and plaintiff cross-appeals. Both appeals are premature. Neither motion has been decided and, therefore, no substantial right of either party has as yet been affected (see, CPLR 5701 [a] [2] [v]; Buhler v Sheridan, 134 AD2d 822). (Appeals from Order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Calvaruso, J. — Discovery.) Present— Denman, P. J., Green, Balio, Doerr and Boehm, JJ.

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

—Appeal and cross appeal unanimously dismissed without costs. Memorandum: In this action alleging social worker malpractice and negligence, defendant demanded disclosure of, inter alia, the records and notes of plaintiffs treating psychiatrist. Claiming privilege, plaintiff moved for a protective order, and defendant cross-moved to compel disclosure. Supreme Court deferred determination of the motion and cross motion pending an in camera review of the psychiatrist’s records and notes. Defendant appeals and plaintiff cross-appeals. Both appeals are premature. Neither motion has been decided and, therefore, no substantial right of either party has as yet been affected (see, CPLR 5701 [a] [2] [v]; Buhler v Sheridan, 134 AD2d 822). (Appeals from Order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Calvaruso, J. — Discovery.) Present— Denman, P. J., Green, Balio, Doerr and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

191 A.D.2d 963, 595 N.Y.S.2d 701, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/statt-v-goldstein-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack