Legal Opinion

Czekanski v. Hanretta

New York Supreme Court

Decided February 26, 1964PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDaniel E. Macken, J.

In connection with an examination of plaintiff Marie Czekanski, consented to by plaintiffs, defendant secured from plaintiff on a form furnished by defendant, and purporting to be “ pursuant to the provisions of Section 3121 CPLR ”, written authorization “ to examine, and/or to obtain or make copies of all or portions of” certain hospital records. The authorization further stated “ I understand that, if copies of all or portions of said hospital records are obtained pursuant to this authorization, a duplicate copy thereof will be furnished *116to me by said attorneys In Ms letter enclosing the…

2Cited by2 opinions

  1. Tower v. Chemical BankAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1988
  2. Castagnazzi v. SchleckerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1990

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API