Eva B., In re

• Decision Date: 17 April 1990
• Citation: 160 A.D.2d 457,553 N.Y.S.2d 770
• Parties: In re EVA B., A Child Under 18 Years of Age, etc. Sheri B., Respondent-Appellant, and Kenneth B., Respondent-Respondent. Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York, Petitioner-Respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 770

553 N.Y.S.2d 770

160 A.D.2d 457

In re EVA B., A Child Under 18 Years of Age, etc. Sheri B., Respondent-Appellant and Kenneth B., Respondent-Respondent Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York Petitioner-Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division First Department.

April 17, 1990.

R.Z. Dobrish, New York City, for respondent-appellant.

R.F. Wayburn, for respondent-respondent.

F. Leoussis, New York City, for petitioner-respondent.

Before SULLIVAN, J.P., and ROSENBERGER, ASCH, ELLERIN and SMITH, JJ.

MEMORANDUM DECISION.

Appeal from an order, Family Court, New York County (Sheldon Rand, J.), entered on or about October 30, 1989, which, upon reargument, granted respondent-appellant's motions to the extent that certain medical personnel were directed to be deposed and adhered to its prior determinations directing an in camera inspection of medical records of respondent-respondent maintained by the Payne Whitney Psychiatric Clinic and, following such inspection, limited discovery sought by respondent-appellant to three notations appearing on said records, that portion of the order which limited respondent-appellant's discovery of the medical records is dismissed as moot, the remaining portion, which granted the respondent-appellant's application to the extent of compelling depositions of certain medical personnel upon certain stated conditions, is unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeals from the orders of the same court, entered on or about September 6, 1989 and entered on or about October 17, 1989, respectively, are dismissed as subsumed in the appeal from the above order, without costs.

After the orders appealed from were entered, the matter proceeded to trial. Shortly before the trial commenced, however, respondent-respondent requested a meeting with the court-appointed validator and voluntarily turned over the medical records in question for her evaluation. In contemplation that all parties to the proceeding would be entitled to possession of the records for the purpose of cross-examining the court-appointed validator, respondent-respondent consented to the release of the records to all parties. Since the disputed medical records were disclosed and were introduced into evidence at the trial, that portion of respondent-appellant's appeal which challenged the Family Court's denial of her application for discovery of the medical records is moot (Matter of Grand Jury Subpoenas for Locals 17, 135, 257 and 608 of ...