Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012

Fox v. Marshall

Fox v. Marshall
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided January 17, 2012
91 A.D.3d 710; 936 N.Y.2d 307
Fox v. Marshall

Cases that cite this one

6 later published cases cite this decision.

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

*711The physician-patient privilege prohibits disclosure of any information acquired by a physician “in attending a patient in a professional capacity, and which was necessary to enable him [or her] to act in that capacity” (Dillenbeck v Hess, 73 NY2d 278, 284 [1989] [internal quotation marks omitted]). Pursuant to CPLR 4504, physicians, nurses, and related professionals “shall not be allowed to disclose any information which he [or she] acquired in attending a patient in a professional capacity, and which was necessary to enable him [or her] to act in that capacity” (CPLR 4504 [a]; see also 4507).

Discovery of medical records regarding a party’s mental or physical condition is permitted when a defendant waives that privilege by affirmatively placing his or her mental or physical condition “in controversy” (CPLR 3121 [a]; see Dillenbeck v Hess, 73 NY2d at 286-287; Lombardi v Hall, 5 AD3d 739, 739-*712740 [2004]). In order to effect a waiver, a party must affirmatively assert the condition and place that condition in issue “ ‘either by way of counterclaim or to excuse the conduct complained of by the plaintiff ” in the pending action or in a related matter (see Dillenbeck v Hess, 73 NY2d at 288, quoting Koump v Smith, 25 NY2d 287, 294 [1969]; see Grafi v Solomon, 274 AD2d 451, 452 [2000]).

Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court did not err in finding that the defendant Evan Marshall waived the physician-patient privilege with respect to the medical records and other documents relating to a prior criminal proceeding in which he was a defendant that are the subject of the orders appealed from here (see Webdale v North Gen. Hosp., 7 Misc 3d 947, 955 [2005], affd 24 AD3d 153 [2005]; see also Szmania v State of New York, 82 AD3d 1688, 1690 [2011]). Further, under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court properly, in effect, denied the requests for an in camera review of certain medical records (cf. J.Z. v South Oaks Hosp., 67 AD3d 645 [2009]; Sohan v Long Is. Coll. Hosp., 282 AD2d 597 [2001]). Rivera, J.E, Eng, Roman and Sgroi, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.