(DOWNLOAD) "Carol Katz v. State New York" by Supreme Court of New York ~ eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Carol Katz v. State New York
- Author : Supreme Court of New York
- Release Date : January 26, 1973
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 65 KB
Description
On May 9, 1972 claimant made a motion seeking, inter alia, discovery and inspection of the alleged assailant's hospital records. This aspect of the motion was denied by order entered May 24, 1972, and no appeal therefrom was taken. On September 11, 1972 claimant again sought discovery and inspection of records relating to Jessica Salvatico. This time, however, the request was limited to non-medical data pertaining to any prior attempted assaults and the number of confiinements to Rockland State Hospital. By the order here appealed from, this motion was denied. In denying the first motion, the court had stated that production of the records then sought would be improper under the provisions of the Mental Hygiene Law and contrary to physician-patient relationship. It is clear that the motion could not have been granted as made, for disclosure of all the records sought would indeed have been in contravention of the privilege (CPLR 4504, subd. [a]). The second motion, on the other hand, which was denied without explanation, should have been granted. The information sought was sufficiently limited so as not to violate the privilege, since it did not include medical data (Homere v. State of New York, 41 A.D.2d 797; Mayer v. Albany Med. Center Hosp., 37 A.D.2d 1011), and there is nothing in the provisions of the Mental Hygiene Law prohibiting disclosure of the records of State institutions pursuant to court order (cf. Mental Hygiene Law, §Â§ 20, 34, subd. 9). The State, however, argues that claimant's second motion was for reargument of the first motion, and that the denial thereof is not appealable. We disagree. Claimant's first motion sought relief which could not have lawfully been granted. The second motion sought relief which was in no wise barred by either of the theories relied on by the court in denying the first motion, or by any other theory. The contention that the latter motion was a reargument of the former must, therefore, be rejected. Disposition Order reversed, on the law and the facts, and motion, insofar as it sought discovery and inspection of the non-medical data contained in the hospital records of Jessica Salvatico, granted, without costs.