Vanadio v. Good Samaritan Hospital

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Vanadio v. Good Samaritan Hospital

85 A.D.2d 662, 445 N.Y.S.2d 215, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16482

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

DecidedDecember 21, 1981

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 85 A.D.2d 662 (Vanadio v. Good Samaritan Hospital) 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

Vanadio v. Good Samaritan Hospital, 85 A.D.2d 662, 445 N.Y.S.2d 215, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16482 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

In a medical malpractice action, the defendant hospital appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Stolarik, J.), dated May 6,1981, which granted plaintiff’s motion for discovery and inspection. Order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. The plaintiff may obtain from defendant hospital the names and addresses of patients who shared decedent’s hospital room during the time he was allegedly left unattended although suffering from a severe heart condition which ultimately led to his demise. Disclosure of the identity of a nonparty patient who may be a witness to alleged acts of malpractice does not violate the privilege of confidentiality of treatment accorded individuals within the purview of CPLR 4504 (subd [a]) or section 2803-c (subd 3, par f) of the Public Health Law (see King v O’Connor, 103 Misc [663]*6632d 607; McMahon v Hayes-73rd Corp., 197 Misc 318). Mollen, P. J., Hopkins, Titone, Weinstein and Bracken, JJ., concur.

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

In a medical malpractice action, the defendant hospital appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Stolarik, J.), dated May 6,1981, which granted plaintiff’s motion for discovery and inspection. Order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. The plaintiff may obtain from defendant hospital the names and addresses of patients who shared decedent’s hospital room during the time he was allegedly left unattended although suffering from a severe heart condition which ultimately led to his demise. Disclosure of the identity of a nonparty patient who may be a witness to alleged acts of malpractice does not violate the privilege of confidentiality of treatment accorded individuals within the purview of CPLR 4504 (subd [a]) or section 2803-c (subd 3, par f) of the Public Health Law (see King v O’Connor, 103 Misc [663]*6632d 607; McMahon v Hayes-73rd Corp., 197 Misc 318). Mollen, P. J., Hopkins, Titone, Weinstein and Bracken, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

85 A.D.2d 662, 445 N.Y.S.2d 215, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16482, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vanadio-v-good-samaritan-hospital-nyappdiv-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack