Turner v. Chiaramonte

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Turner v. Chiaramonte

115 A.D.2d 471, 496 N.Y.S.2d 360, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54856

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

DecidedDecember 2, 1985

StatusPublished

This text of 115 A.D.2d 471 (Turner v. Chiaramonte) 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

Turner v. Chiaramonte, 115 A.D.2d 471, 496 N.Y.S.2d 360, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54856 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

In a medical malpractice action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., defendants Chiaramonte and Hudson Valley Radiologists appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Rosenblatt, J.), entered December 12, 1984, as, upon reargument, adhered to its original determination dated September 20, 1984 granting plaintiffs’ motion for a protective order and denying their cross motion to compel plaintiffs’ compliance with their request for authorizations.

Order reversed, insofar as appealed from, with costs, order dated September 20, 1984 vacated, plaintiffs’ motion denied, and respondents’ cross motion granted. Plaintiffs’ time to comply with respondents’ request for authorizations is extended until 20 days after service upon them of a copy of the order to be made hereon, with notice of entry.

Plaintiffs cannot prevent disclosure by averring that the doctors and hospital which are the subject of the request for authorizations had no connection with the accident. Should the records be found upon examination to be immaterial, respondents will not be able to use them at trial (see, Braynard v Morgan, 50 AD2d 810). Lazer, J. P., Thompson, O’Con-nor, Rubin and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.

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

In a medical malpractice action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., defendants Chiaramonte and Hudson Valley Radiologists appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Rosenblatt, J.), entered December 12, 1984, as, upon reargument, adhered to its original determination dated September 20, 1984 granting plaintiffs’ motion for a protective order and denying their cross motion to compel plaintiffs’ compliance with their request for authorizations.

Order reversed, insofar as appealed from, with costs, order dated September 20, 1984 vacated, plaintiffs’ motion denied, and respondents’ cross motion granted. Plaintiffs’ time to comply with respondents’ request for authorizations is extended until 20 days after service upon them of a copy of the order to be made hereon, with notice of entry.

Plaintiffs cannot prevent disclosure by averring that the doctors and hospital which are the subject of the request for authorizations had no connection with the accident. Should the records be found upon examination to be immaterial, respondents will not be able to use them at trial (see, Braynard v Morgan, 50 AD2d 810). Lazer, J. P., Thompson, O’Con-nor, Rubin and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

115 A.D.2d 471, 496 N.Y.S.2d 360, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54856, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/turner-v-chiaramonte-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack