Jayne v. Smith
| Decision Date | 03 June 2020 |
| Docket Number | Index No. 604101/15,2018–10572 |
| Citation | 184 A.D.3d 557,124 N.Y.S.3d 714 |
| Parties | Millard C. JAYNE, appellant, v. Letty Chandra SMITH, etc., et al., respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Cartier, Bernstein, Auerbach & Steinberg, P.C., Patchogue, N.Y. (Kenneth Auerbach and Robert Steinberg of counsel), for appellant.
Kaufman, Borgeest & Ryan LLP, Garden City, N.Y. (Eldar Mayouhas and Jacqueline Mandell of counsel), for respondents.
RUTH C. BALKIN, J.P., LEONARD B. AUSTIN, HECTOR D. LASALLE, ANGELA G. IANNACCI, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
In a consolidated action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Paul J. Baisely, Jr., J.), dated August 8, 2018. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied those branches of the plaintiff's motion which were pursuant to CPLR 3124 to compel the defendants Letty Chandra Smith, Daniel Robert Klages, and Douglas Kent Hoverkamp to appear for depositions and to answer questions seeking nonprivileged information regarding their nonparty patient and granted that branch of the defendants' cross motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3103(a) for a protective order precluding such questioning of the defendants Letty Chandra Smith, Daniel Robert Klages, and Douglas Kent Hoverkamp.
ORDERED that on the Court's own motion, the notice of appeal from so much of the order as denied that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3124 to compel the defendants Letty Chandra Smith, Daniel Robert Klages, and Douglas Kent Hoverkamp to answer questions seeking nonprivileged information regarding their nonparty patient and granted that branch of the defendants' cross motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3103(a) for a protective order precluding such questioning of the defendants Letty Chandra Smith, Daniel Robert Klages, and Douglas Kent Hoverkamp is deemed to be an application for leave to appeal from those portions of the order, and leave to appeal is granted (see CPLR 5701[c] ); and it is further,
ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law and in the exercise of discretion, with costs, those branches of the plaintiff's motion which were pursuant to CPLR 3124 to compel the defendants Letty Chandra Smith, Daniel Robert Klages, and Douglas Kent Hoverkamp to appear for depositions and to answer questions seeking nonprivileged information regarding their nonparty patient is granted, and that branch of the defendants' cross motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3103(a) for a protective order precluding such questioning of the defendants Letty Chandra Smith, Daniel Robert Klages, and Douglas Kent Hoverkamp is denied.
The plaintiff, a nurse, was seriously injured when he was assaulted by a patient at a psychiatric facility in Suffolk County. The plaintiff thereafter commenced this consolidated action to recover damages for personal injuries against, among others, the defendants Letty Chandra Smith, Daniel Robert Klages, and Douglas Kent Hoverkamp (hereinafter collectively the individual defendants), who were the patient's treating psychiatrists. After the individual defendants indicated at a compliance conference that they would not answer any questions at their depositions regarding the patient, the plaintiff moved, inter alia, pursuant to CPLR 3124 to compel them to appear for depositions and to answer questions seeking nonprivileged information regarding the patient. The defendants cross-moved, inter alia, pursuant to CPLR 3103(a) for a protective order precluding such questioning. The Supreme Court, inter alia, denied those branches of the plaintiff's motion and granted that branch of the defendants' cross motion. The plaintiff appeals.
Generally, "[t]here shall be full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action, regardless of the burden of proof, by ... a party" ( CPLR 3101[a][1] ). However, even relevant discovery is subject to preclusion if the requested information is privileged (see CPLR 3101[b] ; Dillenbeck v. Hess, 73 N.Y.2d 278, 287, 539 N.Y.S.2d 707, 536 N.E.2d 1126 ; see also 22 NYCRR 221.2 [a] ).
Information relating to the nature of medical treatment and the diagnoses made, including "information communicated by the patient while the physician attends the patient in a professional capacity, as well as information obtained from observation of the patient's appearance and symptoms," is privileged and may not be disclosed ( Mullen v. Wishner, 172 A.D.3d 1386, 1388, 102 N.Y.S.3d 234 ; see CPLR 4504 ; Mental Hygiene Law § 33.13[c][1] ; Bellamy v. State of New York, 136 A.D.3d 1247, 25 N.Y.S.3d 739 ). However, "[t]he physician-patient privilege generally does not extend to information obtained outside the realms of medical diagnosis and treatment" ( Matter of Grand Jury Investigation in N.Y. County, 98 N.Y.2d 525, 530, 749 N.Y.S.2d 462, 779 N.E.2d 173 ). Thus, the privilege is generally limited to "information acquired by the medical professional ‘through application of professional skill or knowledge’ " ( id. at 530, 749 N.Y.S.2d 462, 779 N.E.2d 173, quoting Dillenbeck v. Hess, 73 N.Y.2d at...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Turner v. Owens Funeral Home, Inc.
...is akin to a ruling made in the course of the deposition itself and is thus not appealable as of right (see Jayne v. Smith, 184 A.D.3d 557, 558, 124 N.Y.S.3d 714 ; Donato v. Nutovits, 149 A.D.3d 1037, 1038, 52 N.Y.S.3d 488 ; Braverman v. Bendiner & Schlesinger, Inc., 85 A.D.3d 1074, 926 N.Y......
-
Gooden v. N.Y.C. Health & Hosps. Corp.
...acts by Downing. Information of a nonmedical nature regarding prior aggressive or violent acts is not privileged (see Jayne v Smith, 184 A.D.3d 557, 559; J.Z. v South Oaks Hosp., 67 A.D.3d 645, 646; Sohan v Long Is. Coll. Hosp., 282 A.D.2d 597). Accordingly, we remit the matter to the Supre......
-
Heid v. Renwood Assocs., Inc., 2017–05957
...as appealed from.We agree with the Supreme Court's determination to grant those branches of the defendants' separate motions which were 184 A.D.3d 557 for summary judgment dismissing the first through third causes of action, which sound in fraudulent conveyance under Debtor and Creditor Law......
-
Objecting during depositions
...167 (4th Dept. 2010). A party may move to compel if the deponent refuses to answer questions under a claim of privilege. Jayne v. Smith , 184 A.D.3d 557, 124 N.Y.S.3d 714 (2d Dept. 2020). OBJECTION TACTICS Assert the objection as soon as the question is asked and direct the witness not to......
-
Objecting during depositions
...167 (4th Dept. 2010). A party may move to compel if the deponent refuses to answer questions under a claim of privilege. Jayne v. Smith , 184 A.D.3d 557, 124 N.Y.S.3d 714 (2d Dept. 2020). OBJECTION TACTICS Assert the objection as soon as the question is asked and direct the witness not to......
-
Privileges
...limited to information acquired by the medical professional through application of professional skill and knowledge. Jayne v. Smith , 184 A.D.3d 557, 124 N.Y.S.3d 714 (2d Dept. 2020). Exceptions he physician-patient privilege does not apply to information: Obvious to an ordinary person wi......
-
Privileges
...limited to information acquired by the medical professional through application of professional skill and knowledge. Jayne v. Smith , 184 A.D.3d 557, 124 N.Y.S.3d 714 (2d Dept. 2020). Exceptions The physician-patient privilege does not apply to information: Obvious to an ordinary person w......