People v. Doe
| Decision Date | 28 April 1983 |
| Citation | 463 N.Y.S.2d 405,59 N.Y.2d 655 |
| Parties | , 450 N.E.2d 211 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. John DOE, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, 90 A.D.2d 669, 455 N.Y.S.2d 866, with costs.
The Fifth Amendment privilege which exists as to private papers cannot be asserted with respect to records which are required, by law, to be kept and which are subject to governmental regulation and inspection. (See Shapiro v. United States, 335 U.S. 1, 33, 68 S.Ct. 1375, 1392, 92 L.Ed. 1787; Davis v. United States, 328 U.S. 582, 589-590, 66 S.Ct. 1256, 1259-60, 90 L.Ed. 1453; Wilson v. United States, 221 U.S. 361, 380, 31 S.Ct. 538, 544, 55 L.Ed. 771; Matter of Cappetta, 42 N.Y.2d 1066, 1067, 399 N.Y.S.2d 638, 369 N.E.2d 1172; Matter of Sigety v. Hynes, 38 N.Y.2d 260, 268, 379 N.Y.S.2d 724, 342 N.E.2d 518.) To hold otherwise and allow the privilege to cloak such records would make enforcement of State and Federal laws impossible. (United States v. White, 322 U.S. 694, 700, 64 S.Ct. 1248, 1251-52, 88 L.Ed. 1542.)
In light of the fact that the physician appellants in this case were required to maintain the subject records (8 NYCRR 29.2 ) and, under certain circumstances, make them available for governmental inspection (Public Health Law, § 230, subd. 10, par. ), we hold that appellants' personal privilege against self incrimination does not apply to the records sought here. *
With respect to appellants' claim that the demand for billing records exceeds the scope of disclosure pursuant to section 17 of the Public Health Law, we note that CPL 190.40 (subd. 1) requires witnesses in Grand Jury proceedings to provide "any evidence legally requested".
In light of the disposition of this appeal on the basis of the "required records exception" (Matter of Cappetta, 42 N.Y.2d 1066, 399 N.Y.S.2d 638, 369 N.E.2d 1172, supra ), it is unnecessary to pass on the other issues raised by the appellants.
SIMONS, J., taking no part.
On review of submissions pursuant to rule 500.2(b) of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.2 ), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.
* Each of the patients...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Carver Fed. Sav. Bank v. Shaker Gardens, Inc.
...which are required, by law, to be kept and which are subject to governmental regulation and inspection" ( People v. Doe, 59 N.Y.2d 655, 656, 463 N.Y.S.2d 405, 450 N.E.2d 211 [1983] ; see Shapiro v. United States, 335 U.S. 1, 33, 68 S.Ct. 1375, 92 L.Ed. 1787 [1948] ; Matter of Grand Jury Sub......
-
Henry v. Lewis
...language contained in a group insurance claim form", authorized disclosure of their medical records. Citing People v. Doe (59 N.Y.2d 655, 463 N.Y.S.2d 405, 250 N.E.2d 211), it also rejected petitioner's assertion of the privilege against self-incrimination. Petitioner appealed. The parties ......
-
Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Dec. 14, 1984, Y., M.D., P.C. v. Kuriansky
...to records required to be kept by law. (Shapiro v. United States, 335 U.S. 1, 68 S.Ct. 1375, 92 L.Ed. 1787; People v. Doe, 59 N.Y.2d 655, 463 N.Y.S.2d 405, 450 N.E.2d 211). Petitioners concede that the Fifth Amendment privilege does not apply to the content of these records. They contend, h......
-
Moslem v. Demartino
...respect to records which are required, by law, to be kept and which are subject to governmental regulation and inspection" (People v Doe, 59 N.Y.2d 655 [1983]; Carver Federal Savings Bank v Shaker Gardens, Inc, . 167 A.D.3d 1337 [3d Dept 2018]). CPLR §2201 states the following: "Except wher......
-
Am I My Brother's Keeper? Redefining the Attorney-client Relationship
...U.S. 62, 67-68 (1968); In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Served Upon Underhill, 781 F.2d 64, 67-69 (6th Cir. 1986); People v. Doe, 59 N.Y.2d 655, 656-57 18. Colo.RPC 1.13 includes subsection (b), which provides that an attorney for an organization must take action where the "lawyer for ......