Thompson v. Swiantek

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Thompson v. Swiantek

291 A.D.2d 884, 736 N.Y.S.2d 819, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1111

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

DecidedFebruary 1, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 291 A.D.2d 884 (Thompson v. Swiantek) 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

Thompson v. Swiantek, 291 A.D.2d 884, 736 N.Y.S.2d 819, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1111 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from an order of Supreme Court, Niagara County (Fricano, J.), entered June 11, 2001, which denied plaintiffs’ motion for a protective order.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously reversed on the law without costs and the motion is granted.

Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in denying plaintiffs’ motion for a protective order pursuant to CPLR 3103 (a) in this medical malpractice action and in ordering plaintiffs to provide a further response to the demand of Philip A. Swiantek, M.D. and Philip A. Swiantek, M.D., P.C. (defendants) for information regarding their medical expert (see, CPLR 3101 [d] [1] [i]). Plaintiffs disclosed that their expert is a “board certified urologist” who is “licensed to practice in both New Jersey and Pennsylvania and [is] a professor of urology in ? * * Pennsylvania.” It is undisputed that disclosure of the additional information sought, i.e., the medical school that the expert attended and the location of that expert’s internships, residencies and fellowships, would enable defendants to [885]*885ascertain the identity of the expert (see, Brosnan v Shaffron, NYLJ, May 3, 2001, at 23, col 6; Duran v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 182 Misc 2d 232). Because disclosure of that additional information would “effectively lead to disclosure of the expert’s identity,” the request for such disclosure is “palpably improper” (Jones v Putnam Hosp. Ctr., 133 AD2d 447, 447; cf., Jasopersaud v Tao Gyoun Rho, 169 AD2d 184, 188). Present — Wisner, J.P., Hurlbutt, Kehoe, Burns and Lawton, JJ.

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

—Appeal from an order of Supreme Court, Niagara County (Fricano, J.), entered June 11, 2001, which denied plaintiffs’ motion for a protective order.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously reversed on the law without costs and the motion is granted.

Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in denying plaintiffs’ motion for a protective order pursuant to CPLR 3103 (a) in this medical malpractice action and in ordering plaintiffs to provide a further response to the demand of Philip A. Swiantek, M.D. and Philip A. Swiantek, M.D., P.C. (defendants) for information regarding their medical expert (see, CPLR 3101 [d] [1] [i]). Plaintiffs disclosed that their expert is a “board certified urologist” who is “licensed to practice in both New Jersey and Pennsylvania and [is] a professor of urology in ? * * Pennsylvania.” It is undisputed that disclosure of the additional information sought, i.e., the medical school that the expert attended and the location of that expert’s internships, residencies and fellowships, would enable defendants to [885]*885ascertain the identity of the expert (see, Brosnan v Shaffron, NYLJ, May 3, 2001, at 23, col 6; Duran v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 182 Misc 2d 232). Because disclosure of that additional information would “effectively lead to disclosure of the expert’s identity,” the request for such disclosure is “palpably improper” (Jones v Putnam Hosp. Ctr., 133 AD2d 447, 447; cf., Jasopersaud v Tao Gyoun Rho, 169 AD2d 184, 188). Present — Wisner, J.P., Hurlbutt, Kehoe, Burns and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

291 A.D.2d 884, 736 N.Y.S.2d 819, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1111, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thompson-v-swiantek-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack