Paliouras v. Donohue
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the Court
*1071A party or parties seeking to inspect a plaintiffs medical records must first demonstrate that the plaintiffs physical or mental condition is “in controversy” within the meaning of CPLR 3121 (a), and it is only after such an evidentiary showing that discovery may proceed under the statute (see Dillenbeck v Hess, 73 NY2d 278, 287 [1989]; Koump v Smith, 25 NY2d 287, 294 [1969]; Neferis v DeStefano, 265 AD2d 464 [1999]). Even where this preliminary burden has been satisfied, discovery may still be precluded where the information requested is privileged and, thus, exempted from disclosure…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Koump v. SmithNew York Court of Appeals · 1969
- Dillenbeck v. HessNew York Court of Appeals · 1989
- Navedo v. NicholsAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1996
- Lombardi v. HallAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2004
- Neferis v. DeStefanoAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1999
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Washington v. Alpha-K Family Medical Practice, P.C.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2015