CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lynch v. Waterfront Commission

The president of the New York Shipping Association-International Longshoremen’s Association Medical Center of New York, Inc. moved to quash a subpoena duces tecum issued by the Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor. The movant argued that the commission lacked jurisdiction, the subpoena was overly broad, and it demanded privileged medical records. The commission initiated the investigation after the New York State Department of Insurance found discrepancies during an audit of the medical center’s welfare fund, specifically regarding a contract with T. C. Dental Laboratories, which was also implicated in irregularities in a New Jersey investigation. The court denied the motion, affirming the commission's jurisdiction under the Waterfront Commission Compact, stating that misuse of worker funds constitutes a 'waterfront practice' within its purview. The court also found the subpoena was not unduly broad, as it requested only corporate minutes relevant to the investigation, and confirmed that privileged medical records were not required.

Subpoena QuashWaterfront CommissionJudicial ReviewCorporate GovernanceFinancial AuditMedical FundDental ServicesLabor WelfareRegulatory JurisdictionCorrupt Practices
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Russo v. Hardy

The Monroe County Department of Social Services, as petitioner in a paternity case against 'X' concerning a child born to 'Y', filed a motion to quash a subpoena duces tecum. The subpoena sought records related to assistance given to 'Y' and her statements about the child's parentage. The Department argued confidentiality under Social Services Law and CPLR. The court, presided by Judge Joseph T. Pilato, denied the motion, ruling that such records are not uniformly confidential and that special circumstances exist, especially given the infant's rights and the necessity of all available evidence for a paternity determination. The court ordered disclosure of relevant records to the respondent, limited to conversations between the petitioner and the caseworker.

paternity casesubpoena duces tecumconfidentialitysocial services recordsspecial circumstancesfiliation proceedingdisclosureinfant's rightsFamily CourtCPLR
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 13, 1978

People ex rel. Hickox v. Hickox

In a child custody proceeding, the petitioner father sought the respondent mother's psychiatric records from Payne-Whitney Psychiatric Clinic via a subpoena duces tecum. Special Term granted the motion to quash the subpoena. On appeal, the order was reversed, and the motion to quash was denied. The appellate court clarified that a subpoena does not equate to an order of disclosure and directed that the Special Term Justice must first examine the records to determine their relevance, whether the physician-patient privilege (CPLR 4504) has been waived, and the necessity of disclosure for the custody determination, prioritizing the child's welfare while guarding against unnecessary revelation of confidential information. The court emphasized a cautious approach to disclosure, especially in light of the potential 'chilling effect' on parents seeking psychiatric help.

Child CustodySubpoena Duces TecumPsychiatric RecordsPhysician-Patient PrivilegeConfidentialityWaiver of PrivilegeDisclosure LimitationsAppellate ReviewJudicial DiscretionWelfare of the Child
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re an Application to Quash a Subpoena Duces Tecum in Grand Jury Proceedings

The New York Court of Appeals held that a hospital under Grand Jury investigation for alleged crimes against patients (e.g., "no coding") cannot assert physician-patient or social worker-client privileges, or the patient’s right to privacy, to quash subpoenas for medical records. The court reasoned that these privileges are intended to protect patients, not to shield potential criminals. Additionally, the conditional privilege for material prepared for litigation (CPLR 3101 [d]) does not apply to Grand Jury subpoenas. The decision affirmed the denial of motions to quash subpoenas related to patients Maria M. and Daisy S., emphasizing the broad investigative powers of the Grand Jury.

Grand JurySubpoena Duces TecumPhysician-Patient PrivilegeSocial Worker-Client PrivilegePatient PrivacyMaterial Prepared for LitigationHospital InvestigationMedicaid Fraud ControlCriminal ActivityNo Coding
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Constance B. v. Joan M.

This case involves a motion to quash a judicial subpoena duces tecum issued by respondent Joan M. The subpoena sought all records pertaining to Sonya M. from Under 21, a private, not-for-profit corporation serving runaway and homeless youths. The underlying matter is a petition where Sonya M.'s mother and her paramour, Robert B., are charged with child abuse and neglect. The court determined that the information sought was irrelevant to the neglect proceeding, deeming it a "fishing expedition." Crucially, the court found that Under 21 is legally prohibited from disclosing such information due to the confidentiality provisions of the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act of 1978 (Executive Law, art 19-H, § 532 et seq.) and its implementing regulations (9 NYCRR 182.1 et seq.). The court emphasized the legislative intent to protect the confidentiality of runaway youth records, noting that the Family Court Act § 1046's exceptions to privilege do not extend to runaway home records. The court granted the motion to quash, affirming that the cloak of confidentiality for runaway homes shall not be broken without the youth's written consent.

ConfidentialityRunaway and Homeless Youth ActSubpoena Duces TecumChild Abuse and NeglectFamily LawStatutory InterpretationDisclosure of RecordsYouth ServicesConfidential CommunicationsLegislative Intent
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 16, 1988

In re the Grand Jury Subpoenas Served Upon Doe

The Grand Jury of New York County issued subpoenas duces tecum to the law firm of John Doe, P. C., seeking various records. John Doe, P. C. moved to quash or modify these subpoenas, asserting attorney-client and attorney work product privileges. After an in camera review of 109 files, the court denied the attorney-client privilege claim for two files due to insufficient proof of confidentiality. For the work product privilege, the court applied the crime-fraud exception for specific subpoenaed records, citing an ongoing investigation into corruption in personal injury litigation. The court also narrowly construed the work product privilege. Consequently, the motion was granted for eight specific files found to contain protected attorney work product, while denied for the remaining files. The records not protected by privilege were ordered to be delivered to the District Attorney by August 18, 1988, following service of the decision on August 16, 1988.

attorney-client privilegework product privilegesubpoenas duces tecumGrand Jury investigationcrime-fraud exceptionin camera inspectionlegal ethicsconfidentialityevidence disclosuremotion to quash
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Doe v. People

This opinion addresses an application filed by an unnamed hospital, referred to as the 'Petitioner,' seeking to quash two Grand Jury subpoenas duces tecum. These subpoenas, issued in August 1982 by the Deputy Attorney-General for Medicaid fraud control, sought patient medical records, including 'progress notes' and 'mechanical ventilation flow sheets.' The hospital argued against disclosure based on patient privacy rights and the physician-patient privilege. The court, presided over by Justice George J. Balbach, denied the application, reaffirming that a hospital under investigation for potential crimes against its patients cannot assert these privileges to obstruct a Grand Jury investigation. The decision emphasized the Grand Jury's broad investigatory powers and the principle that privileges are intended to protect patients, not shield alleged wrongdoers.

Grand JurySubpoena Duces TecumPhysician-Patient PrivilegePatient PrivacyMedicaid Fraud ControlHospital RecordsConfidentialityQuash SubpoenaCriminal InvestigationStatutory Interpretation
References
9
Case No. 2025 NYSlipOp 07376
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 31, 2025

DeCastro v. Capone

Nonparty Michael Gillin appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, which denied his motion to quash a judicial subpoena duces tecum and for a protective order. The underlying case is a medical malpractice action initiated by Manuel DeCastro against David Capone and others, related to treatment at Stony Brook Southampton Hospital. Gillin, as Director of Information Services at the hospital, provided an affidavit regarding electronic medical records in a related Court of Claims action. The defendants then served a subpoena duces tecum on Gillin for emails related to his affidavit, which Gillin sought to quash, asserting attorney-client privilege with the Office of the Attorney General. The Appellate Division affirmed the denial, ruling that Gillin failed to establish an attorney-client relationship, partly because his employment agreement with StaffCo of Brooklyn, LLC, stated he was not considered a SUNY employee for most purposes, thereby not establishing a relationship with the OAG representing SUNY.

Medical MalpracticeJudicial EstoppelAttorney-Client PrivilegeSubpoena Duces TecumEmployer-Employee RelationshipProfessional Employer Organization (PEO)Information ServicesElectronic Medical RecordsAffidavitCourt of Claims
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Stephen F.

In a neglect proceeding under Article 10 of the Family Court Act, the Beth Israel Medical Center moved to quash a subpoena for records of the respondents, citing confidentiality protections under 21 U.S. Code § 1175 for drug abuse prevention records. The court weighed the public interest in child protection against patient confidentiality. It granted the motion to quash concerning the father's records, noting no allegation of neglect due to his drug use. For the mother's records, the court found the existing evidence of her prior drug use (admissions to a caseworker, grandmothe, and a prior Family Court finding) would make the subpoenaed records merely cumulative, thus not meeting the 'good cause' standard for immediate disclosure. However, the court reserved its final decision on quashing the subpoena for the mother's records, awaiting testimony from the doctor who diagnosed the child with 'failure to thrive' to determine if the records are relevant to the cause of the condition.

Neglect ProceedingChild ProtectionConfidentiality of RecordsDrug Abuse TreatmentSubpoenaFamily CourtMedical Records DisclosurePhysician-Patient PrivilegeGood Cause StandardCumulative Evidence
References
6
Case No. ADJ8436843
Regular
Jun 15, 2015

KEITH VOELKER vs. G.S.E. CONSTRUCTION, NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA

This case involves a workers' compensation applicant seeking to quash subpoenas duces tecum issued by the defendant. The Appeals Board granted the petition for removal in part, quashing the subpoena for personal financial information from a golf course as irrelevant. However, the Board affirmed the denial of the motion to quash subpoenas for medical records, finding that the applicant placed his medical condition and its consequences in issue. The Board also clarified that an affidavit showing good cause is not required for a deposition subpoena seeking only business records for copying.

Subpoena Duces TecumPetition for RemovalMotion to QuashPhysician-Patient PrivilegePrivacy RightsCompensable ConsequencesApportionment of Permanent DisabilityCode of Civil ProcedureBusiness Records ExceptionGood Cause
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 219 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational