Watson v. State, 59054
| Decision Date | 24 June 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 59054,59054 |
| Citation | 53 A.D.2d 798,385 N.Y.S.2d 170 |
| Parties | Betty WATSON, as mother and natural guardian of Anthony Watson, an infant, Respondent, v. STATE of New York, Appellant. Claim |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Louis J. Lefkowitz, Atty. Gen. (Ruth Kessler Toch and Henderson G. Riggs, Albany, of counsel), for appellant.
Finkelstein, Mauriello, Kaplan & Levine, Newburgh (Benjamin J. Fried, Newburgh, of counsel), for respondent.
Before GREENBLOTT, J.P., and SWEENEY, MAHONEY, HERLIHY and REYNOLDS, JJ.
Appeal from an order of the Court of Claims, entered October 22, 1975, which granted claimant's motion for discovery and denied the State's cross-motion for an order requiring claimant to execute certain medical authorization forms and to submit to a narrative oral examination before trial as to certain acts.
With respect to the documents which the Court of Claims ruled discoverable, section 372 of the Social Services Law is not applicable since none of the contested documents are records within the meaning of paragraphs (a) through (i) of subdivision 1 of said section. Exhibits 7 through 10 are statements made by students at the Center during the investigation of the incident and do not fall within the confidential information relating to committed children protected by section 372. Exhibit 14 was objected to as being on Ombudsman Report, but it was properly held discoverable as being reports made in the normal course of business (see Wilson v. State of New York, 36 A.D.2d 559, 317 N.Y.S.2d 546). Finally, the Memos-Watson file concerns the claimant himself, and, certainly, claimant may obtain discovery of this file (see Paine v. Chick, 50 A.D.2d 686, 375 N.Y.S.2d 198).
As to the question of medical authorizations, CPLR 3121 evidences a liberal policy of disclosure where a party puts his physical or mental condition in controversy (Koump v. Smith, 25 N.Y.2d 287, 295, 303 N.Y.S.2d 858, 865, 250 N.E.2d 857, 861). Here, it is urged that the physical condition of Anthony Watson's chin is the only physical condition at issue, and, accordingly, discovery should be limited only to records related thereto. However, the claim asserts that Watson 'was caused to sustain severe and serious personal injuries to his mind and body * * *'. Thus, since the claim makes broad allegations of injury, the claimant has not sustained his burden of showing the records sought are not sufficiently related to his condition as not to be discoverable (see Josephs v. Oliver, 48 A.D.2d 688, 367 N.Y.S.2d 836; Mancinelli v. Texas Eastern Transmission Corp., 34 A.D.2d 535, 308 N.Y.S.2d 882). Execution of the medical authorization should, therefore, have been ordered.
Similarly, the questioning relating to Watson's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hildebrandt v. William H. Stephan, M.D. & William H. Stephan, M.D., P.C.
...that time.(Freedco Prods., Inc. v. New York Tel. Co., 47 A.D.2d 654, 366 N.Y.S.2d 401 [2d Dept. 1975], see also Watson v. State, 53 A.D.2d 798, 385 N.Y.S.2d 170 [3d Dept. 1976]; White, 100 A.D.2d at 805, 474 N.Y.S.2d 733; Humiston v. Grose, 144 A.D.2d 907, 534 N.Y.S.2d 604 [4th Dept. 1988];......
-
Rosenblitt v. Rosenblitt
...recognized in this State (see Allen v. Crowell-Collier Pub. Co., 21 N.Y.2d 403, 288 N.Y.S.2d 449, 235 N.E.2d 430; Watson v. State of New York, 53 A.D.2d 798, 385 N.Y.S.2d 170; Siegel, New York Prac., §§ 343, 344). Absent special circumstances that would render an examination unjustified in ......
-
State v. Carey Resources, Inc.
...is not a basis for precluding civil discovery (3A Weinstein-Korn-Miller, NY Civ Prac, par 3101.39; cf. Watson v. State of New York, 53 A.D.2d 798, 385 N.Y.S.2d 170; Hudson Tire Mart v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 518 F.2d 671) and a blanket refusal to answer cannot, absent unique circumstances n......
-
Anker v. Brodnitz
...Parties may be in substantial disagreement over the kinds of injuries put in issue by the pleadings (see, e. g., Watson v. State of New York, 53 A.D.2d 798, 385 N.Y.S.2d 170). Whether a physical or mental condition is in controversy often requires a careful judicial scrutiny and not a mere ......
-
Table of cases
...Watson v. Jade Luxury Transportation Corp., et al., 114 A.D.3d 495, 982 N.Y.S.2d 1 (1st Dept. 2014), §20:40 Watson v. State of New York, 53 A.D.2d 798, 385 N.Y.S.2d 170 (3d Dept. 1976), §§ 15:10, 15:80, 21:20, 21:50 Wayrech v. Trustees of Columbia University, 203 A.D.2d 53, 610 N.Y.S.2d 480......
-
Objecting during depositions
...burdensome, the witness is not required to answer. White v. Martins, 100 A.D.2d 805, 474 N.Y.S.2d 733 (1st Dept. 1984); Watson v. State, 53 A.D.2d 798, 385 N.Y.S.2d 170 (3d Dept. 1976). §21:30 Procedure Depositions are usually taken in the office of the attorney who has sought the depositio......
-
Witness examination
...format, to allow opposing counsel a better opportunity to pose objections to questions or answers. See Watson v. State of New York , 53 A.D.2d 798, 385 N.Y.S.2d 170 (3d Dept. 1976) (narratives are disfavored even in pretrial oral examination, though trial court has discretion to permit them......
-
Objecting during depositions
...burdensome, the witness is not required to answer. White v. Martins, 100 A.D.2d 805, 474 N.Y.S.2d 733 (1st Dept. 1984); Watson v. State, 53 A.D.2d 798, 385 N.Y.S.2d 170 (3d Dept. 1976). §21:30 Procedure Depositions are usually taken in the oice of the attorney who has sought the deposition.......