Opinion
06-23-2016
B.S., Plaintiff–Respondent, v. B.F., Defendant–Appellant.
Blank Rome LLP, New York (Brett S. Ward of counsel), for appellant. Kasowitz Benson Torres & Friedman LLP, New York (Adam J. Wolff of counsel), for respondent.
Blank Rome LLP, New York (Brett S. Ward of counsel), for appellant.
Kasowitz Benson Torres & Friedman LLP, New York (Adam J. Wolff of counsel), for respondent.
Opinion
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Deborah A. Kaplan, J.), entered December 18, 2015, which, to the extent appealed from, denied defendant husband's motion to compel discovery from plaintiff wife, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The motion court providently exercised its discretion in denying defendant's motion seeking records regarding plaintiff's mental and medical health, since plaintiff did not waive the physician-patient privilege by making any claims or taking any positions that placed her physical or mental condition “in controversy” (CPLR 3121[a] ; see generally Wegman v. Wegman, 37 N.Y.2d 940, 941, 380 N.Y.S.2d 649, 343 N.E.2d 288 [1975] ; see also Proschold v. Proschold, 114 Misc.2d 568, 569, 451 N.Y.S.2d 956 [Sup.Ct., Suffolk County 1982] ). Her specification of her health conditions in her net worth statement did not place her health conditions in controversy, since such specification is required in a contested divorce proceeding (see 22 NYCRR 202.16 [b]; 22 NYCRR subtit. D, ch. III, subch. A, forms; see also Proschold, 114 Misc.2d at 569, 451 N.Y.S.2d 956 ). Nor did plaintiff's denial of certain medical conditions in response to defendant's allegations place those conditions in controversy (see Koump v. Smith, 25 N.Y.2d 287, 294, 303 N.Y.S.2d 858, 250 N.E.2d 857 [1969] ).
We have considered defendant's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.
SWEENY, J.P., RENWICK, MANZANET–DANIELS, WEBBER, JJ., concur.