Moore v. Gemerek
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the Court
—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: There is no merit to defendant’s contention that Supreme Court abused its discretion by ordering that plaintiffs’ counsel review the records of plaintiff Ethel L. Moore’s general practitioner, Dr. Holmes, and provide any and all relevant and material information to defendant’s counsel. Medical records and reports pertaining to the diagnosis and treatment of plaintiff Ethel Moore in this personal injury action are material and necessary to the defense and are therefore discoverable (see, Pizzo v Bunora, 89 AD2d 1013, 1014; CPLR 3101).…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Andre v. PomeroyNew York Court of Appeals · 1974
- Dunlap v. United Health Services, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1993
- Pizzo v. BunoraAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1982
- Dale v. Emerson Electric Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1995
3Cited by2 opinions
- MS Partnership v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2000
- L.P.S. Enterprises of New York, Ltd. v. Senpike Mall Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1999