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

In re Handicapped Child

The Orchard Park Central School District (District) sought a court-ordered subpoena for psychiatric and psychological records of an infant student from the Western New York Children’s Psychiatric Center. The District intended to use these records in an appeal initiated by the student's parents concerning the child's handicapping condition. The parents cross-moved to quash the subpoena, asserting the records were privileged and their consent for release had been withdrawn. Justice Thomas P. Flaherty ruled that no legislative exception existed to abrogate the physician-patient and psychologist-client privileges in this context, especially over parental objection. Consequently, the court denied the District's motion for the subpoena and granted the parents' cross-motion to quash, underscoring the protection of confidential communications in a child's best interests.

Education LawStudent RecordsPsychiatric RecordsPsychological RecordsPrivilegeSubpoena Duces TecumMotion to QuashParental RightsCommittee on HandicappedFair Hearing

References

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

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

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

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Aug 28, 1980

Parisi v. Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor

The Supreme Court, New York County, initially granted a petitioner's motion to modify a subpoena duces tecum issued by the Waterfront Commission, limiting its scope to the records of Dominick Mancini. However, this decision was unanimously reversed on appeal. The appellate court denied the petitioner's motion in its entirety, ruling that the subpoena, which sought sign-in and attendance records of waterfront workers' compensation patients treated by the petitioner (a doctor), was legitimate. The court found that the subpoena was neither arbitrary nor in excess of the commission's jurisdiction, citing the commission's ongoing investigation into fraudulent workers' compensation claims by longshoremen. The appellate court also concluded that the subpoena was not vague or overly broad.

Subpoena Duces TecumWaterfront CommissionWorkers' Compensation ClaimsFraud InvestigationJurisdiction of CommissionScope of SubpoenaAppellate ReviewMotion to Set AsideDenial of MotionRecords Production

References

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

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

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

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

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Nelson v. Biderman

The petitioner moved for a warrant under CPLR 2308(b) to commit the respondent to jail for refusing to be sworn as a witness and produce requested books and records in a pending arbitration proceeding. The respondent had previously unsuccessfully moved to set aside the arbitrator's subpoenas, and the petitioner's cross-motion to compel compliance was granted. An appeal by the respondent for a stay was denied by the Appellate Division. The respondent persisted in his refusal before the arbitrator, leading to the current motion. The respondent argued, for the first time, that only the 'issuer' of the subpoena, the arbitrator, could move for relief under CPLR 2308(b), collaterally attacking the prior order. The court rejected this argument, interpreting 'issuer' to include the party on whose application the subpoena was issued in a non-judicial proceeding, and found it impractical to limit the remedy to the official. The motion was granted.

ArbitrationSubpoena enforcementCPLR 2308(b)CPLR 2302(a)Contempt of courtWitness refusalDocument productionCollateral attackJudicial interpretationMotion to compel

References

Showing 1-10 of 4,068 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

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

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

In re Handicapped Child

Education LawStudent RecordsPsychiatric RecordsPsychological RecordsPrivilegeSubpoena Duces TecumMotion to QuashParental RightsCommittee on HandicappedFair Hearing

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Aug 16, 1988

In re the Grand Jury Subpoenas Served Upon Doe

attorney-client privilegework product privilegesubpoenas duces tecumGrand Jury investigationcrime-fraud exceptionin camera inspectionlegal ethicsconfidentialityevidence disclosuremotion to quash

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

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

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

In re Stephen F.

Neglect ProceedingChild ProtectionConfidentiality of RecordsDrug Abuse TreatmentSubpoenaFamily CourtMedical Records DisclosurePhysician-Patient PrivilegeGood Cause StandardCumulative Evidence

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Aug 28, 1980

Parisi v. Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Russo v. Hardy

paternity casesubpoena duces tecumconfidentialitysocial services recordsspecial circumstancesfiliation proceedingdisclosureinfant's rightsFamily CourtCPLR

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Lynch v. Waterfront Commission

Subpoena QuashWaterfront CommissionJudicial ReviewCorporate GovernanceFinancial AuditMedical FundDental ServicesLabor WelfareRegulatory JurisdictionCorrupt Practices

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Apr 13, 1978

People ex rel. Hickox v. Hickox

Child CustodySubpoena Duces TecumPsychiatric RecordsPhysician-Patient PrivilegeConfidentialityWaiver of PrivilegeDisclosure LimitationsAppellate ReviewJudicial DiscretionWelfare of the Child

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Constance B. v. Joan M.

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Nelson v. Biderman

ArbitrationSubpoena enforcementCPLR 2308(b)CPLR 2302(a)Contempt of courtWitness refusalDocument productionCollateral attackJudicial interpretationMotion to compel

References

Showing 1-10 of 4,068 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

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