Zion v. New York Hospital

2 Citing cases

  1. Hernandez v. City of New York

    207 A.D.3d 450 (N.Y. App. Div. 2022)   Cited 2 times

    Here, in support of its cross motion, inter alia, for a protective order, HHC submitted, among other things, an affidavit of its Director of Quality Management, a privilege log, and, in camera, the Guest Relations file. The Supreme Court properly concluded that HHC's showing was insufficient to demonstrate that the documents at issue were generated by or at the behest of HHC's quality assurance committee (seeRobertson v. Brookdale Hosp. Med. Ctr., 153 A.D.3d at 744, 59 N.Y.S.3d 485 ; Estate of Savage v. Kredentser, 150 A.D.3d 1452, 1454–1455, 55 N.Y.S.3d 484 ; Matter of Coniber v. United Mem. Med. Ctr., 81 A.D.3d 1329, 1330, 916 N.Y.S.2d 398 ; Kivlehan v. Waltner, 36 A.D.3d 597, 599, 827 N.Y.S.2d 290 ; Heitman v. Mango, 237 A.D.2d 330, 331, 654 N.Y.S.2d 413 ; Zion v. New York Hosp., 184 A.D.2d 441, 585 N.Y.S.2d 393 ). Accordingly, the court properly, in effect, granted that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was to compel HHC to produce the undisclosed documents in the Guest Relations file, and properly, in effect, denied that branch of HHC's cross motion which was for a protective order precluding disclosure of those documents.

  2. Maisch v. Millard Fillmore Hospitals

    262 A.D.2d 1017 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)   Cited 3 times

    No incident report was made by the Hospital to the Department of Health pursuant to Public Health Law § 2805-i, and the statutes providing confidentiality and prohibiting disclosure of such reports therefore do not apply ( see, Public Health Law § 2805-m; Education Law § 6527). Defendants did not establish that the letter report in question was generated in connection with a quality assurance review function pursuant to Education Law § 6527 (3) or a malpractice prevention program pursuant to Public Health Law § 2805-j ( see, Crea v. Newfane Inter-Community Mem. Hosp., 224 A.D.2d 976, 977; Zion v. New York Hosp., 184 A.D.2d 441, rearg granted 183 A.D.2d 386). Thus, they have not met their burden of establishing that the document is entitled to statutory confidentiality and protection from disclosure ( see, Koump v. Smith, 25 N.Y.2d 287, 294-295; Westhampton Adult Home v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa., 105 A.D.2d 627, 628).