From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cardillo v. Hillcrest General Hospital

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 10, 1989
149 A.D.2d 454 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)

Opinion

April 10, 1989

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Santucci, J.).


Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provisions thereof denying the motion and the cross motion in their entirety and substituting therefor provisions granting renewal, and, upon renewal, modifying a prior order of the same court, dated September 8, 1986, so as to reinstate so much of their March 1986 demands as sought authorizations to obtain all school records pertaining to the infant plaintiff's sibling Joanne; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements, and the plaintiffs' time to provide the authorizations is extended until 20 days after service upon them of a copy of this decision and order, with notice of entry.

Contrary to the plaintiffs' contention, dismissal of this appeal is not warranted, as the order appealed from denies renewal (cf., Patterson v. Town of Hempstead, 104 A.D.2d 975).

As to the merits of this appeal, we agree with the Supreme Court that the information revealed by the infant plaintiff's parents during the course of their depositions and in the reports and evaluations submitted in support of the appellants' motions constitute the mere facts and incidents of the medical history of the infant plaintiff's mother and sibling, and thus does not constitute privileged material (see, Williams v. Roosevelt Hosp., 66 N.Y.2d 391; Yetman v. Southampton Hosp., 147 A.D.2d 693). Since this information was not privileged, the infant plaintiff's mother cannot be said to have waived the physician-patient privilege by voluntarily revealing it. Thus, the appellants have failed to establish their entitlement to the medical records of the infant plaintiff's mother and sibling and the Supreme Court did not err in refusing to reinstate so much of the March 1986 demands as sought authorizations for those records.

However, as the plaintiffs concede, the defendants are entitled to the infant plaintiff's sibling's academic records (see, Dalley v. LaGuardia Hosp., 130 A.D.2d 543). Thompson, J.P., Bracken, Brown and Rubin, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Cardillo v. Hillcrest General Hospital

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 10, 1989
149 A.D.2d 454 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)
Case details for

Cardillo v. Hillcrest General Hospital

Case Details

Full title:CHRISTOPHER CARDILLO, an Infant, by His Parent and Natural Guardian…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Apr 10, 1989

Citations

149 A.D.2d 454 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)
539 N.Y.S.2d 953

Citing Cases

Wepy v. Shen

Ordered that the order is modified by deleting therefrom the provision denying the appellant discovery of the…

Roman v. Turner Colours, Inc

ient privilege ( see, Murphy v. LoPresti, 232 A.D.2d 461, 462; Bolos v. Staten Is. Hosp., 217 A.D.2d 643,…