You are here: / Privilege
, , ,

DEFENDANTS’ DECEDENT’S PHARMACY RECORDS IN THIS BICYCLE-VEHICLE COLLISION CASE ARE NOT PROTECTED BY PHYSICIAN-PATIENT PRIVILEGE AND MUST BE DISCLOSED SUBJECT TO TIME LIMITATIONS AND IN CAMERA REVIEW (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined that defendants’ decedent’s pharmacy records were not protected by physician-patient privilege and must be disclosed to plaintiff, subject to certain limitations and an in camera review. Plaintiff was injured when her bicycle collided with a vehicle driven by decedent:

We agree with plaintiffs, however, that decedent’s pharmacy records are not protected by the physician-patient privilege (see CPLR 4504 [a] … ) and are “material and necessary” to the prosecution of the action (CPLR 3101 [a] …). Nevertheless, we conclude that plaintiffs’ request for records “before and after” the collision was overly broad, and we therefore limit disclosure of the pharmacy records to the six-month period immediately preceding the collision. Furthermore, those records “should not be released to [plaintiffs] until the court has conducted an in camera review thereof, so that irrelevant information is redacted”… . … [D]efendants are directed to submit to the court, for the six-month period  immediately preceding the accident, pharmacy records identifying the medications prescribed to decedent and the prescribed dosages of those medications, and we remit the matter to Supreme Court for an in camera review of those records. Carr-Hoagland v Patterson, 2019 NY Slip Op 02000, Fourth Dept 3-15-19

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFF’S DEPLORABLE MISCONDUCT, INCLUDING ACCESSING DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATIONS, DELETING RELEVANT DOCUMENTS AND LYING UNDER OATH, IN DELAWARE COURT PROCEEDINGS REQUIRED DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFF’S PERSONAL INJURY ACTION AGAINST THE SAME DEFENDANT IN NEW YORK (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the plaintiff’s personal injury action should have been dismissed because of plaintiff’s misconduct in a Delaware court proceeding. The New York personal injury action alleged plaintiff was injured in an physical fight with the defendant which stemmed from the Delaware litigation. The Delaware court found that plaintiff had engaged in deplorable misconduct by accessing defendant’s privileged attorney-client communications, deleting relevant documents and lying under oath:

Plaintiff’s improper and willful access of defendant’s privileged communications and spoliation of evidence supports dismissal of his claims in this action (CPLR 3103[c]; CPLR 3126[3]; Lipin v Bender , 84 NY2d 562 [1994] [dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint because her improper taking of the defendant’s attorney/client documents and work product caused prejudice to the defendant and irreparably tainted the litigation process]). Among the materials improperly accessed here was a privileged memorandum from defendant’s counsel about his strategy concerning the incident underlying this action. Further, plaintiff’s counsel referred to the contents of some of the privileged communications during motion practice in this litigation. Since “[p]laintiff’s knowledge . . . can never be purged,” and he would “carry [that knowledge] into any new attorney-client relationship,” we find that dismissal of the complaint is “the only practicable remedy here” … . Shawe v Elting, 2019 NY Slip Op 01374, First Dept 2-26-19

 

,

EMAIL CALLING INTO QUESTION THE LEGITIMACY OF PLAINTIFF’S PHD PROTECTED BY QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the defendant’s CPLR 4401 motion to dismiss the complaint after trial in this defamation action was properly granted. The statements were deemed to be protected by qualified privilege:

The parties are members of the faculty of the School of Business at Medgar Evers College (hereinafter MEC), a college of the City University of New York (hereinafter CUNY). The plaintiff commenced this action alleging that each of the defendants sent an email defaming her to other faculty and staff within the School of Business. The content of the emails related to the quality or legitimacy of the plaintiff’s doctoral degree, and included statements that she did not have a recognized Ph.D., that her degree was not genuine, and that it was purchased from a diploma mill.  * * *

A qualified privilege extends to a communication made by one person to another upon a subject in which both have an interest … . The privilege does not apply where the plaintiff can demonstrate that the communication was not made in good faith, but was motivated solely by malice, meaning, in this context, “spite or a knowing or reckless disregard of a statement’s falsity” … . However, “[m]ere conclusory allegations, or charges based upon surmise, conjecture, and suspicion are insufficient to defeat the claim of qualified privilege” … .

Here, based on the plaintiff’s evidence, the challenged statements concerned a matter in which the defendants and the recipients of the defendants’ emails had a common interest, namely, the academic reputation and integrity of the School of Business and its faculty … . Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, accepting her evidence as true and affording her every favorable inference which may be properly drawn from it … , that evidence does not support a reasonable conclusion that the challenged statements were motivated solely by malice. Udeogalanya v Kiho, 2019 NY Slip Op 01251, Second Dept 2-20-19

 

, ,

MEMORANDUM PREPARED BY PLAINTIFF’S GENERAL COUNSEL PROTECTED FROM DISCLOSURE BY COMMON INTEREST PRIVILEGE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the common interest privilege applied to a memorandum by plaintiff’s general counsel:

The motion court properly held that a legal memorandum prepared by plaintiff’s General Counsel, and addressed to its Chief Executive Officer, which provided a summary and analysis of its pending litigation matters, including the litigation at issue, and subsequently shared with potential merger partners during the due diligence period pursuant to a common interest agreement, was privileged and protected from disclosure.

The common interest privilege is an exception to the traditional rule that the presence of a third-party at a communication between counsel and client is sufficient to deprive the communication of confidentiality. The common interest doctrine is a limited exception to waiver of the attorney-client privilege, and requires that: (1) the underlying material qualify for protection under the attorney-client privilege, (2) the parties to the disclosure have a common legal interest, and (3) the material must pertain to pending or reasonably anticipated litigation for it to be protected. The record, here, demonstrates that the common interest agreement was entered into in reasonable anticipation of litigation … .  Kindred Healthcare, Inc. v SAI Global Compliance, Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 01164, First Dept 2-14-19

 

, ,

STATEMENTS MADE BY THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE CONCERNING HER DECISION TO FIRE PLAINTIFF, THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE MONROE COMMUNITY HOSPITAL, WERE EITHER ABSOLUTELY OR QUALIFIEDLY PRIVILEGED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined statements made to the press by the county executive (Brooks) concerning her decision to terminate plaintiff (the executive director of the Monroe Community Hospital (MCH)) were either absolutely or qualifiedly privileged:

The absolute privilege defense affords complete immunity from liability for defamation to ” an official [who] is a principal executive of State or local government’ . . . with respect to statements made during the discharge of those responsibilities about matters which come within the ambit of those duties” …  “The first prong of that test . . . [requires an examination of] the personal position or status of the speaker,” and “the second prong . . . requires an examination of the subject matter of the statement and the forum in which it is made in the light of the speaker’s public duties” … . We conclude that absolute privilege applies here because Brooks was the Monroe County Executive (see id.) and her statements with respect to plaintiff’s termination concerned matters involving her official duties. Furthermore, because the investigation and the underlying actions of plaintiff became a matter of public attention and controversy, Brooks’s form of communication, i.e., statements to the press, was warranted … .

Even assuming, arguendo, that the statements were not covered by absolute privilege, we conclude that the defense of qualified privilege applies. “Generally, a statement is subject to a qualified privilege when it is fairly made by a person in the discharge of some public or private duty, legal or moral, or in the conduct of his [or her] own affairs, in a matter where his [or her] interest is concerned” … . Here, defendants satisfied their initial burden by establishing that Brooks made the relevant statements in her role as the Monroe County Executive, thereby discharging her responsibility to keep the public informed regarding a sensitive issue that had obtained extensive media attention … , and thus “the burden shifted to plaintiff[] to raise a triable issue of fact whether the statements were motivated solely by malice” … . Spring v County of Monroe, 2019 NY Slip Op 00747, Fourth Dept 2-1-19

 

, ,

NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY COULD NOT AVOID DISCLOSURE OF RELEVANT DOCUMENTS BY RELYING ON ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE BECAUSE IT HAD PLACED THE KNOWLEDGE OF ITS LAW DEPARTMENT AT ISSUE, MOTION TO COMPEL WAS PROPERLY GRANTED, MONETARY SANCTIONS WERE PROPERLY ORDERED, WILLFUL AND CONTUMACIOUS BEHAVIOR NEED NOT BE SHOWN UNLESS A DRASTIC REMEDY LIKE STRIKING THE PLEADINGS IS IMPOSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, over a dissent, determined Supreme Court properly sanctioned the defendant, the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA), for failure to turn over documents in the discovery phase of a contract action. NYCHA alleged that third party defendants “engaged in [a]conspiracy to defraud NYCHA by submitting fraudulent certifications attesting that plaintiff’s former owners had not been charged or convicted of a crime. … Third-party defendants maintain that they informed NYCHA that the charges … had been terminated with a conditional discharge based upon the payment of less than $200 in court costs. They assert that NYCHA extended all three of the contracts … while having full knowledge of these facts.” NYCHA alleged the contested documents were protected by attorney-client privilege:

[Supreme Court] granted plaintiff and third-party defendants’ motion to compel [NYCHA] to comply with discovery orders to the extent of ordering NYCHA to produce discovery material previously redacted on the ground of attorney-client privilege … and … to pay $3,000 as a sanction for its behavior during discovery and for violation of prior court orders, and to certify that it did not possess additional documents responsive to the discovery demands or court orders … . * * *

The court correctly found that having placed the knowledge of its law department at issue, NYCHA waived attorney-client privilege with respect to the subject documents. NYCHA cannot seek to prevent the disclosure of evidence showing that its attorneys — the very individuals who performed the bid review function for NYCHA — recommended that NYCHA award the contracts to plaintiff despite knowledge of the operative facts … .

Further, NYCHA may not rely on attorney-client privilege while selectively disclosing other self-serving privileged communications … .

The motion court providently exercised its discretion in finding that NYCHA’s conduct during discovery warranted sanctions. …

… [I]t is unnecessary to demonstrate willful and contumacious behavior in order to impose a sanction like a monetary sanction or preclusion, as opposed to a more drastic sanction such as the striking of a pleading … . Metropolitan Bridge & Scaffolds Corp. v New York City Hous. Auth., 2019 NY Slip Op 00526, First Dept 1-24-19

 

 

, ,

DEFAMATORY REMARKS MADE AT A MUNICIPAL PUBLIC MEETING HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SUBSTANCE OF THE MEETING AND THEREFORE WERE NOT ABSOLUTELY PRIVILEGED, PLAINTIFF’S DEFAMATION ACTION PROPERLY SURVIVED A MOTION TO DISMISS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff’s defamation action properly survived a motion to dismiss. The defendant sought permission from the Village’s Board of Historic Preservation and Architectural Review to add an exterior stairway to her house. At the public meeting plaintiff, defendant’s neighbor, objected to the stairway. Then defendant made some remarks directly to plaintiff which, in essence, accused plaintiff of setting up a camera to view defendant’s daughter’s bedroom. The Second Department noted that statements at a public meeting before a municipal body are generally absolutely privileged. But here the statements had nothing to do with the substance of the meeting:

“The elements of a cause of action for defamation are (a) a false statement that tends to expose a person to public contempt, hatred, ridicule, aversion, or disgrace, (b) published without privilege or authorization to a third party, (c) amounting to fault as judged by, at a minimum, a negligence standard, and (d) either causing special harm or constituting defamation per se” … .

“Absolute privilege is based upon the personal position or status of the speaker and is limited to the speaker’s official participation in the processes of government” … . “The absolute privilege generally is reserved for communications made by individuals participating in a public function, such as executive, legislative, judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings. This protection is designed to ensure that such persons’ own personal interests—especially fear of a civil action, whether successful or otherwise—do not have an adverse impact upon the discharge of their public function” … .

Here, as a threshold matter, the challenged statements, considered in the context in which they were made, tended to expose the plaintiff to public contempt, hatred, ridicule, aversion, or disgrace.

The challenged statements, which were made in the context of a contested application before a municipal body whose determination is subject to judicial review pursuant to CPLR article 78 …, would ordinarily be subject to absolute privilege… . Nevertheless, the absolute privilege embraces only those statements that may possibly be or become material or pertinent to the matters before the Board, construed under an extremely liberal standard… . Upon our review of the papers and documentary evidence submitted by the parties, we discern “not one scintilla of evidence present upon which to base the possible pertinency of [the] defendant’s statement[s]”… . Therefore, under the circumstances of this case, the challenged statements are not subject to an absolute privilege … . Gugliotta v Wilson, 2019 NY Slip Op 00261, Second Dept 1-16-19

 

, , ,

DEFENDANTS ARE REQUIRED TO PRODUCE TAX AND WAGE DOCUMENTS AND TO PROVIDE FACTUAL BASES FOR THEIR REFUSAL TO ANSWER QUESTIONS, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ACCEPTED DEFENDANTS’ BLANKET ASSERTIONS OF THE PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION AND SPOUSAL PRIVILEGE IN THIS CONTEMPT PROCEEDING STEMMING FROM AN ACTION TO RECOVER A DEFICIENCY JUDGMENT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined that the defendant’s blanket assertion of his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and his wife’s assertion of her Fifth Amendment and her spousal privileges did not justify the denial of plaintiff’s motion to hold defendant in contempt or the denial of a motion to compel defendant’s wife to submit to a deposition and produce documents. Plaintiff sought payment of a multi-million dollar deficiency judgment. The Third Department explained that tax returns, W-2 forms and 1099 forms fall withing the “required records exception” to the privilege against self-incrimination. The Third Department further found that defendant and his wife must provide a factual basis for their refusal to answer each of the 358 questions posed by plaintiff because there had been no showing that criminal proceedings against the defendant were imminent or that the spousal privilege was applicable:

… [D]efendant’s income tax returns, W-2 wage statements and 1099 forms — fall within the “required records exception” to the privilege against self-incrimination. Under this exception, “[t]he Fifth Amendment privilege which exists as to private papers cannot be asserted with respect to records which are required, by law, to be kept and which are subject to governmental regulation and inspection” … . “To constitute ‘required records,’ the documents must satisfy a three-part test: (1) the requirement that they be kept must be essentially regulatory, (2) the records must be of a kind which the regulated party has customarily kept, and (3) the records themselves must have assumed ‘public aspects’ which render them analogous to public documents” … . …

… [I]t is not evident that every answer to the 358 questions propounded during the May 2015 deposition, and every disclosure of the remaining documents requested in the subpoena, would subject defendant to a real and substantial danger of self-incrimination. The questions put to defendant were those customarily asked at a judgment debtor examination, and there is no indication that the purpose of the deposition was “anything other than an ordinary search of [defendant’s] assets in order to satisfy the judgment against him” … . … [T]here is nothing in this record indicating, nor does defendant assert, that he is the subject of any criminal investigation or proceeding. More to the point, defendant has not shown that his claimed fear of prosecution is anything other than “imaginary” … .

… [W]e conclude that Supreme Court’s order denying plaintiff’s motion to compel as to Chava Nelkenbaum [defendant’s wife] must be reversed and the matter remitted for an in camera inquiry to test the validity of her invocation of the Fifth Amendment privilege as to each of the questions asked and each of the documents demanded of her. To the extent that Chava Nelkenbaum invoked the spousal privilege as a basis for refusing to answer certain questions propounded at the deposition or to produce documents responsive to the subpoena, we note that the privilege “attaches only to those statements made in confidence and ‘that are induced by the marital relation and prompted by the affection, confidence and loyalty engendered by such relationship'” … . Further, this privilege does not attach to “ordinary conversations relating to matters of business” … . Carver Fed. Sav. Bank v Shaker Gardens, Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 08975, Third Dept 12-27-18

 

, ,

REMARKS ALLEGED TO BE DEFAMATORY REFLECTED THE RESULTS OF A JUDICIAL PROCEEDING AND WERE THEREFORE PRIVILEGED PURSUANT TO CIVIL RIGHTS LAW 74 (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determination the complaint alleging defamation causes of action against attorneys who had been interviewed about litigation involving plaintiff and Elizabeth Etling, whom the defendant attorneys represented. The court held that the remarks alleged to be defamatory were either protected descriptions of judicial determinations in the case or were otherwise not actionable. With respect to the Civil Rights Law privilege, the court wrote:

Defendants’ comment about plaintiff’s “massive spoliation” or “spoliation in droves” is protected under Civil Rights Law § 74 as a fair and true report, even if the Delaware Chancery Court did not use defendants’ exact words in its decision… . The court concluded that plaintiff had intended and attempted to destroy “a substantial amount of information,” and detailed plaintiff’s responsibility for the deletion, in violation of court order, of approximately 41,000 files from his computer. Plaintiff argues that defendants overstated the matter, because his spoliation proved largely reversible. Indeed, of the 41,000 files deleted, 1,000 were permanently destroyed. However, plaintiff did not cause the recovery of the data; rather, it occurred in spite of him. Moreover, he lied under oath about his spoliating conduct. As the court observed, an unsuccessful spoliator is still a spoliator… .

Defendants’ comment that plaintiff was “holding Elting hostage” is protected under Civil Rights Law § 74. During the interviews at issue, defendants cited the section of the post-trial decision in which the court used similar language in summarizing Elting’s position … . Defendants’ statement that “no rational person would ever want to partner with [plaintiff],” which is nearly a verbatim quotation from the court’s decision, is protected under the statute. Shawe v Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP, 2018 NY Slip Op 08550, First Dept 12-13-18

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF DID NOT PLACE HER PRIOR KNEE INJURIES IN CONTROVERSY BY ALLEGING A LOSS OF ENJOYMENT OF LIFE, THEREFORE PLAINTIFF DID NOT WAIVE HER PATIENT-PHYSICIAN PRIVILEGE RE: THE KNEE-INJURY MEDICAL RECORDS, THE FIRST DEPT DECIDED NOT TO FOLLOW THE 2ND DEPT’S CONTRARY RULING, EXTENSIVE TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Singh, over an extensive two-justice dissenting opinion, determined that the plaintiff in this traffic accident case did not place her prior knee injuries in controversy and the defendants’ demand for the related medical authorizations should not have been granted. The First Department held plaintiff had not waived her patient-physician privilege regarding the knee injuries. Plaintiff had alleged injury to her back, neck and shoulder, but had also alleged a loss of enjoyment of life, including her inability to wear heels. Defendants argued that her prior knee injury and surgery were relevant to those same issues. The First Department decided not to follow the 2nd Department’s contrary holding:

Contrary to defendants’ argument, neither plaintiff’s bill of particulars nor her deposition testimony places her prior knee injuries in controversy. In paragraph 10 of her bill of particulars, plaintiff limits the injuries she sustained in the 2014 accident to her cervical spine, lumbar spine, and left shoulder. Accordingly, the specified bodily injuries that are affirmatively placed in controversy are the spinal and shoulder injuries. The claims for lost earnings and loss of enjoyment of life alleged in the bill of particulars are limited to these specified injuries. Plaintiff does not mention her prior knee treatments. Nor does she claim that the injuries to her knees were exacerbated or aggravated as a result of the 2014 automobile accident. * * *

Defendants cite to [2nd] Department precedent in support of their argument that the condition of plaintiff’s knees is material and necessary to their defense. The [2nd] Department has held that a party places his or her entire medical condition in controversy through “broad allegations of physical injuries and claimed loss of enjoyment of life due to those injuries” … .

We are not persuaded by the reasoning of the [2nd] Department. In our view, the [2nd] Department’s precedent cannot be reconciled with the Court of Appeals’ rulings that the physician-patient privilege is waived only for injuries affirmatively placed in controversy. Brito v Gomez, 2018 NY Slip Op 08105, First Dept 11-27-18

NEGLIGENCE (PLAINTIFF DID NOT PLACE HER PRIOR KNEE INJURIES IN CONTROVERSY BY ALLEGING A LOSS OF ENJOYMENT OF LIFE, THEREFORE PLAINTIFF DID NOT WAIVE HER PATIENT-PHYSICIAN PRIVILEGE RE: THE KNEE-INJURY MEDICAL RECORDS, THE FIRST DEPARTMENT DECIDED NOT TO FOLLOW THE 2ND DEPARTMENT’S CONTRARY RULING, EXTENSIVE TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FIRST DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS  (PLAINTIFF DID NOT PLACE HER PRIOR KNEE INJURIES IN CONTROVERSY BY ALLEGING A LOSS OF ENJOYMENT OF LIFE, THEREFORE PLAINTIFF DID NOT WAIVE HER PATIENT-PHYSICIAN PRIVILEGE RE: THE KNEE-INJURY MEDICAL RECORDS, THE FIRST DEPARTMENT DECIDED NOT TO FOLLOW THE 2ND DEPARTMENT’S CONTRARY RULING, EXTENSIVE TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FIRST DEPT))/EVIDENCE (NEGLIGENCE, PLAINTIFF DID NOT PLACE HER PRIOR KNEE INJURIES IN CONTROVERSY BY ALLEGING A LOSS OF ENJOYMENT OF LIFE, THEREFORE PLAINTIFF DID NOT WAIVE HER PATIENT-PHYSICIAN PRIVILEGE RE: THE KNEE-INJURY MEDICAL RECORDS, THE FIRST DEPARTMENT DECIDED NOT TO FOLLOW THE 2ND DEPARTMENT’S CONTRARY RULING, EXTENSIVE TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FIRST DEPT))/PRIVILEGE (NEGLIGENCE, TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, PLAINTIFF DID NOT PLACE HER PRIOR KNEE INJURIES IN CONTROVERSY BY ALLEGING A LOSS OF ENJOYMENT OF LIFE, THEREFORE PLAINTIFF DID NOT WAIVE HER PATIENT-PHYSICIAN PRIVILEGE RE: THE KNEE-INJURY MEDICAL RECORDS, THE FIRST DEPARTMENT DECIDED NOT TO FOLLOW THE 2ND DEPARTMENT’S CONTRARY RULING, EXTENSIVE TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FIRST DEPT))/PATIENT-PHYSICIAN PRIVILEGE (NEGLIGENCE, TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, PLAINTIFF DID NOT PLACE HER PRIOR KNEE INJURIES IN CONTROVERSY BY ALLEGING A LOSS OF ENJOYMENT OF LIFE, THEREFORE PLAINTIFF DID NOT WAIVE HER PATIENT-PHYSICIAN PRIVILEGE RE: THE KNEE-INJURY MEDICAL RECORDS, THE FIRST DEPARTMENT DECIDED NOT TO FOLLOW THE 2ND DEPARTMENT’S CONTRARY RULING, EXTENSIVE TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FIRST 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