Shapiro v. Central General Hosp., Inc.
| Decision Date | 18 March 1991 |
| Citation | 171 A.D.2d 786,567 N.Y.S.2d 507 |
| Parties | Jack M. SHAPIRO, Appellant-Respondent, v. CENTRAL GENERAL HOSPITAL, INC., Respondent-Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Torino & Singer, Melville (Charles A. Singer, on the brief), for appellant-respondent.
Mulholland Minion & Roe, Williston Park (Donald W. Henderson, on the brief), for respondent-appellant.
Before MANGANO, P.J., and BROWN, SULLIVAN and EIBER, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for libel, slander, and interference with business relations, (1) the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Roberto, J.), dated September 8, 1989, as denied those branches of his motion which were to compel disclosure with regard to items numbered 2, 3, 8, 9, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24 of his notice for discovery and inspection, and granted those branches of the cross motion of the defendant Central General Hospital, Inc., which were for a protective order with respect to those items, and (2) the defendant Central General Hospital, Inc., cross-appeals from the order.
ORDERED that the defendant is awarded costs.
The Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiff's motion to compel disclosure with regard to items numbered 2, 3, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19 and 24 set forth in his notice of discovery and inspection on the ground that they request material which is protected from disclosure by statute (see, Education Law § 6527[3]; Public Health Law §§ 2805-j[1][f]; 2805-m[1]. Education Law § 6527(3) provides in relevant part that "[n]either the proceedings nor the records relating to performance of a medical * * * review function * * * shall be subject to disclosure under article thirty-one of the civil practice law and rules except * * * as provided by any other provision of law". The policy underlying this provision is to encourage hospitals to review the performance of physicians by providing a degree of confidentiality for medical review proceedings (see, Parker v. St. Clare's Hosp., 159 A.D.2d 919, 553 N.Y.S.2d 533; Bush v. Dolan, 149 A.D.2d 799, 540 N.Y.S.2d 21; Matter of Broome County Med. Socy. v. Guest, 122 A.D.2d 527, 504 N.Y.S.2d 907; Daly v. Genovese, 96 A.D.2d 1027, 466 N.Y.S.2d 428). The foregoing discovery requests, most of which are also generalized and overbroad, clearly seek disclosure of material and documents which are entitled...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Travelers Cas. and Sur. Co. of Am. v. Bank of Am., N.A., 2009 NY Slip Op 33014(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 12/16/2009)
...if it is of a confidential and private nature, irrelevant to the issues in the case, or overbroad. Shapiro v. Central General Hosp., Inc., 171 A.D.2d 786, 787-8 (2d Dept. 1991). Generally, BOA's objections to the discovery demands rest upon the assertion that Travelers' notice for discovery......
-
Altman v. N.Y. City Health & Hospitals Corp.
...must be conveyed to them, and assurances of confidentiality are furnished to encourage such transmissions. See Shapiro v. Central Gen. Hosp., Inc., 171 A.D.2d 786, 787 (1991). The ADA does not require a lowering of such standards. See 42 U.S.C. Section(s) 12201(b); Wood v. County of Alameda......
-
Tartaglia v. Paul Revere Life Ins. Co., M 8-85.
...Western New York, Inc., 190 A.D.2d 1025, 593 N.Y.S.2d 648 (N.Y.App. Div., 4th Dep't 1993), and Shapiro v. Central General Hosp., 171 A.D.2d 786, 567 N.Y.S.2d 507 (N.Y.App.Div., 2d Dep't 1991) — the relevant documents were protected from disclosure due in part to the fact that disclosure wou......
-
Armenia v. Blue Cross of Western New York, Inc.
...was exempt from disclosure (see, Education Law § 6527[3]; McGlynn v. Grinberg, 172 A.D.2d 960, 568 N.Y.S.2d 481; Shapiro v. Central Gen. Hosp., 171 A.D.2d 786, 567 N.Y.S.2d 507; Matter of Albany Med. Center Hosp. v. Denis, 161 A.D.2d 1030, 557 N.Y.S.2d 523; Parker v. St. Clare's Hosp., 159 ......