You are here: / / IN THIS CHILD VICTIMS ACT SUIT ALLEGING ABUSE BY AN EMPLOYEE OF A GROUP...
, , , ,

IN THIS CHILD VICTIMS ACT SUIT ALLEGING ABUSE BY AN EMPLOYEE OF A GROUP FOSTER HOME, THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE HELD A DISCOVERABILITY HEARING BEFORE DETERMINING WHICH FOSTER-CARE RECORDS WERE DISCOVERABLE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this Child Victims Act case, determined the judge should have held a discoverability hearing before which foster-care records could be released to the plaintiff. Plaintiff alleged he was abused in 1991 and 1992 by an employee of a group foster home (Little Flower):

Social Services Law § 372(3) requires “authorized agenc[ies],” including Little Flower, to “generate and keep records of those [children] who are placed in [their] care” … . Foster care records are deemed confidential (see Social Services Law § 372[3]), “considering that they must contain individualized and often highly personal information about the [children]” … . The confidential nature of such records serves “[t]o safeguard both the child and [his or her] natural parents” … , as well as others who may be “the subjects of such records” … . Although foster care records are entitled to a presumption of confidentiality, they may nonetheless be deemed discoverable pursuant to the provisions of CPLR article 31 … . Moreover, since “[the] statutory confidentiality requirement is intended [in part] to protect the privacy of children in foster care,” it should not be used “to prevent former foster children from obtaining access to their own records” … , although this does not mean that they are always entitled to unfettered disclosure thereof. Even when considering a request for disclosure from a former foster child, “[a]n agency [may] move for a protective order where some part of the record should not be produced” … . * * *

Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion when it declined to conduct a discoverability hearing before deciding that branch of Little Flower’s motion which sought a protective order regarding the purportedly confidential portions of the records. We therefore remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, to conduct such a hearing and to “clearly specify the grounds for its denial or approval of disclosure with respect to each document or category of documents” … .  Cowan v Nassau County Dept. of Social Servs., 2022 NY Slip Op 05989, Second Dept 10-26-22

Practice Point: Here, in this Child Victims Act suit, the judge should have held a discoverability hearing before deciding which foster-care records could be released to plaintiff. Plaintiff alleged he was abused in 1991 and 1992 by an employee of a group foster home.

 

You might also like
DEFENDANT’S ALLEGATION PLAINTIFF’S VEHICLE STOPPED SUDDENLY FOR NO APPARENT REASON DID NOT DEFEAT SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LIABILITY IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE; HOWEVER PLAINTIFF’S COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE, IF ANY, COULD OFFSET THE AMOUNT OF DAMAGES AT TRIAL (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THAT PLAINTIFF PLED GUILTY TO A TRAFFIC OFFENSE DOES NOT PROVE SHE WAS NEGLIGENT; PLAINTIFF ALLEGED SHE PLED GUILTY BECAUSE SHE DID NOT HAVE THE MONEY TO DRIVE FROM HER HOME FOR COURT APPEARANCES (SECOND DEPT).
DISAGREEING WITH THE FIRST DEPARTMENT, THE SECOND DEPARTMENT HELD THAT DAMAGES FOR “PRE-IMPACT TERROR” ARE NOT APPROPRIATE IN A MED MAL CASE; HERE PLAINTIFF SUFFERED A HEART ATTACK IN 2008 AND DIED IN 2011 (SECOND DEPT).
THE FEDERAL CRIME WHICH WAS USED TO ENHANCE DEFENDANT’S SENTENCE WAS NOT A FELONY IN NEW YORK; DEFENDANT’S SECOND FELONY ADJUDICATION VACATED (SECOND DEPT).
APPELLANT EXERCISED UNDUE INFLUENCE OVER DECEDENT, SATISFACTION OF MORTGAGE PROVIDED TO APPELLANT NULLIFIED PURSUANT TO THE RIGGS DOCTRINE, FORECLOSURE OF THE MORTGAGE DEEMED PROPER (SECOND DEPT).
Petitioner’s Position Properly Abolished by Enactment of Town Budget
Supreme Court Properly Imputed Income to Husband (Higher than that Reported by Husband) in Awarding Pendente Lite Maintenance and Child Support
HERE PLAINTIFF DID NOT IDENTIFY AN EXPERT WITNESS AS REQUIRED BY CPLR 3101 AND THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED; HOWEVER PLAINTIFF ALLEGED SCARRING AND BURNING DURING LASER HAIR REMOVAL AND MAY STILL BE ABLE TO PROVE ORDINARY NEGLIGENCE THROUGH THE TESTIMONY OF HIS TREATING PHYSICIAN AND OTHER EVIDENCE; THE NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

THE CITY’S COMPLAINT ALLEGED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE BASED... PLAINTIFF, IN THIS CHILD VICTIMS ACT SUIT, ALLEGED HE WAS ABUSED BY AN EMPLOYEE...