Vanalst v. City of New York
| Decision Date | 30 October 2000 |
| Citation | 715 N.Y.S.2d 422,276 A.D.2d 789 |
| Parties | JULIUS VANALST, Respondent,<BR>v.<BR>CITY OF NEW YORK, Defendant, and<BR>BROOKLYN UNION GAS COMPANY, Appellant. (And a Third-Party Action.) |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, with costs, that branch of the cross motion is granted, and the plaintiff is directed to provide the appellant, Brooklyn Union Gas Company, with copies of all medical reports, hospital reports, and medical reports from the plaintiff's Social Security Disability claim, concerning back injuries the plaintiff sustained before September 28, 1991.
The plaintiff alleges that he sustained an injury to his left knee when he tripped and fell in a roadway on September 28, 1991. During the course of discovery, it was learned that the plaintiff has a history of lower back pain as the result of an automobile accident in 1986 and a work-related accident in 1989. The defendant Brooklyn Union Gas Company sought discovery pertaining to those injuries, contending that since the plaintiff is seeking damages for loss of the enjoyment of life as a result of the accident on September 28, 1991, the nature and extent of the prior injuries may be relevant on the issue of damages.
It is well settled that a party waives the physician-patient privilege by affirmatively placing his or her physical condition in issue (see, Dillenbeck v Hess, 73 NY2d 278; Cynthia B. v New Rochelle Hosp. Med. Ctr., 60 NY2d 452), and that CPLR 3101 (a) requires full disclosure of all evidence material and necessary to the prosecution or defense of an action, regardless of the burden of proof (see, Allen v Crowell-Collier Publ. Co., 21 NY2d 403).
Here, the nature and severity of the plaintiff's previous back injuries may have an impact upon the amount of damages, if any, recoverable for a claimed loss of enjoyment of life because of his current knee injury. Therefore, the requested records and reports are material and necessary to the defense, and the Supreme Court erred in denying that branch of the appellant's cross motion which was for disclosure (see, CPLR 3101 [a]; Dillenbeck v Hess, supra; Allen v Crowell-Collier Publ. Co., supra).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brito v. Gomez
...Dept. 2014] ; Orlando v. Richmond Precast, Inc., 53 A.D.3d 534, 535, 861 N.Y.S.2d 765 [2d Dept. 2008] ; Vanalst v. City of New York, 276 A.D.2d 789, 715 N.Y.S.2d 422 [2d Dept. 2000] ). We are not persuaded by the reasoning of the Second Department. In our view, the Second Department's prece......
-
Romano v. Steelcase Inc.
...were material and necessary to the defenseregarding plaintiff's claim of loss of enjoyment of life); Vanalst v. City of New York, 276 A.D.2d 789, 715 N.Y.S.2d 422 [2 Dept. 2000]; Mora v. St. Vincent's Catholic Med. Ctr., 8 Misc.3d 868, 800 N.Y.S.2d 298 [Sup. Ct. NY. Co. 2005]. Thus, in Sgam......
-
M.C. v. Sylvia Marsh Equities, Inc.
...quotation marks omitted]; see Diamond v. Ross Orthopedic Group, P.C., 41 A.D.3d 768, 769, 839 N.Y.S.2d 211;Vanalst v. City of New York, 276 A.D.2d 789, 715 N.Y.S.2d 422). Moreover, the defense is entitled to review records showing “the nature and severity of the plaintiff's prior medical co......
-
DeLouise v. S.K.I. Wholesale Beer Corp.
...of Insurance Law § 5102(d), as well as to any913 N.Y.S.2d 776claims of loss of enjoyment of life ( see Vanalst v. City of New York, 276 A.D.2d 789, 715 N.Y.S.2d 422). Thus, the Supreme Court erred in denying those branches of the defendants' motion which were to compel the plaintiff to prov......