From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

McFarlane v. County of Suffolk

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 24, 2009
60 A.D.3d 918 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)

Opinion

No. 2008-06214.

March 24, 2009.

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for assault and battery, false arrest, and false imprisonment, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Rebolini, J.), dated June 16, 2008, which denied their motion to compel the plaintiff to fully respond to their notice for discovery and inspection by furnishing authorizations for certain medical records.

Christine Malafi, County Attorney, Hauppauge, N.Y. (Christopher A. Jeffreys of counsel), for appellants.

Ewall Ewall, Huntington, N.Y. (Lisa Arden of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Mastro, J.P., Covello, Eng and Leventhal, JJ.


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the defendants' contention, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its broad discretion in denying their motion to compel the plaintiff to furnish the requested authorizations for certain medical records ( see generally Gilman Ciocia, Inc. v Walsh, 45 AD3d 531; Walsh v Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 289 AD2d 842). The court properly determined that the records sought by the defendants were totally unrelated to the plaintiffs claims and the injuries sued upon, so the plaintiff did not waive the physician-patient privilege with regard to those records ( see generally Wojtusiak v Elardo, 43 AD3d 436; Sadicario v Stylebuilt Accessories, 250 AD2d 830; Zappi v Pedigree Ski Shop, 244 AD2d 331).


Summaries of

McFarlane v. County of Suffolk

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 24, 2009
60 A.D.3d 918 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)
Case details for

McFarlane v. County of Suffolk

Case Details

Full title:ANTONETTE T. McFARLANE, Respondent, v. COUNTY OF SUFFOLK et al., Appellants

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

Date published: Mar 24, 2009

Citations

60 A.D.3d 918 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)
2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 2337
875 N.Y.S.2d 581

Citing Cases

Froehlich v. Kimco Realty Corp.

"It is well settled that a party must provide duly executed and acknowledged written authorizations for the…

Romance v. Zavala

Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the defendants' motion which was to compel…