Vigilante v. Ghetto Kids, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Vigilante v. Ghetto Kids, Inc.

282 A.D.2d 672, 723 N.Y.S.2d 689, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3983

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

DecidedApril 23, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 282 A.D.2d 672 (Vigilante v. Ghetto Kids, Inc.) 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

Vigilante v. Ghetto Kids, Inc., 282 A.D.2d 672, 723 N.Y.S.2d 689, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3983 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for medical malpractice, the defendants Episcopal Health Service, Inc., and “Dr. S. Scheman” appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Cowan, J.), dated June 19, 2000, which denied their motion for a protective order.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The burden of establishing that disputed material is exempt from disclosure is on the party opposing discovery (see, Kellner v General Motors Corp., 273 AD2d 444). The appellants failed to meet their burden of establishing that the entry in the office chart maintained by Dr. S. Scheman that they sought to shield from disclosure was statutorily exempt from disclosure pursuant to Education Law § 6527 (3) because it concerned the performance of a medical review function. O’Brien, J. P., Krausman, Goldstein, Schmidt and Crane, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for medical malpractice, the defendants Episcopal Health Service, Inc., and “Dr. S. Scheman” appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Cowan, J.), dated June 19, 2000, which denied their motion for a protective order.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The burden of establishing that disputed material is exempt from disclosure is on the party opposing discovery (see, Kellner v General Motors Corp., 273 AD2d 444). The appellants failed to meet their burden of establishing that the entry in the office chart maintained by Dr. S. Scheman that they sought to shield from disclosure was statutorily exempt from disclosure pursuant to Education Law § 6527 (3) because it concerned the performance of a medical review function. O’Brien, J. P., Krausman, Goldstein, Schmidt and Crane, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

282 A.D.2d 672, 723 N.Y.S.2d 689, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3983, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vigilante-v-ghetto-kids-inc-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack