Powers v. Faxton Hosp., 23 A.D.3d 1105 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005). · Go Syfert
Search
Powers v. Faxton Hosp., 23 A.D.3d 1105 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
7 citation events (7 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Pasek v. Catholic Health Sys., Inc. (nyappdiv, 2018-03-23)
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Pasek v. Catholic Health Sys., Inc.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2018 · confidence medium
Thus, the information contained in the report is expressly exempted from disclosure under CPLR article 31 pursuant to the confidentiality conferred on information gathered by defendant in accordance with Education Law § 6527 (3) and Public Health Law § 2805-m ( see DiCostanzo v Schwed , 146 AD3d 1044, 1045-1046 [3d Dept 2017]; Kivlehan v Waltner , 36 AD3d 597, 599 [2d Dept 2007]; Powers v Faxton Hosp ., 23 AD3d 1105, 1106 [4th Dept 2005]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Estate of Savage v. Kredentser
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · confidence medium
Education Law § 6527 (3) and Public Health Law § 2805-m protect from disclosure records relating to performance of a medical or quality assurance review function or participation in a medical malpractice prevention program (see Logue v Velez, 92 NY2d 13, 16-17 [1998]; Daly v Brunswick Nursing Home, Inc., 95 AD3d 1262, 1263 [2012]; Powers v Faxton Hosp., 23 AD3d 1105, 1106 [2005]; Orner v Mount Sinai Hosp., 305 AD2d 307, 310 [2003]; see also Katherine F. v State of New York, 94 NY2d 200, 203-205 [1999]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) DiCostanzo v. Schwed
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · confidence medium
Finally, despite plaintiffs request that some of the allegedly privileged material be reviewed by Supreme Court in camera, there was “no basis for an in camera review because there [was] no evidence that any part of the information sought [was] outside the protection of Education Law § 6527 (3) and Public Health Law § 2805-m (2)” (Powers v Faxton Hosp., 23 AD3d 1105, 1106 [2005]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Canandaigua National Bank & Trust Co. v. Palmer
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
Finally, defendant’s contention that plaintiff is not entitled to equitable relief because it has an adequate remedy at law is raised for the first time on appeal and thus is unpreserved for our review (see Powers v Faxton Hosp., 23 AD3d 1105, 1106 [2005]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Canandaigua National Bank & Trust Co. v. Palmer
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
Finally, defendant’s contention that plaintiff is not entitled to equitable relief because it has an adequate remedy at law is raised for the first time on appeal and thus is unpreserved for our review (see Powers v Faxton Hosp., 23 AD3d 1105, 1106 [2005]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Aldridge v. Brodman
N.Y. App. Div. · 2008 · confidence medium
The hearing therefore was not required pursuant to Public Health Law § 2805-j and thus was not protected by the confidentiality provisions of Public Health Law § 2805-m (cf. Logue v Velez, 92 NY2d 13, 18 [1998]; Powers v Faxton Hosp., 23 AD3d 1105, 1106 [2005]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Brenda L. Powers
v.
Faxton Hospital
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Nov 10, 2005.
23 A.D.3d 1105
Cited by 7 opinions  |  Published

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Oneida County[*1106] (John G. Ringrose, A.J.), entered July 8, 2004. The order, inter alia, denied in part plaintiffs’ cross motion for an order compelling defendant Faxton Hospital to produce certain records.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Plaintiffs contend that Supreme Court erred in denying that part of their cross motion seeking access to portions of the credentialing and privileging files of defendant Faxton Hospital (Hospital) concerning defendant Gary Gaines, M.D. We reject that contention. The record establishes that the Hospital obtained and maintained the information sought as part of its medical quality assessment and review process in compliance with Public Health Law §§ 2805-j and 2805-k, and thus the information is confidential and exempted from disclosure under CPLR article 31 pursuant to Education Law § 6527 (3) and Public Health Law § 2805-m (2) (see Logue v Velez, 92 NY2d 13, 18 [1998]; Bernholc v Kitain, 294 AD2d 387 [2002]). The court therefore properly denied that part of the cross motion seeking access to those portions of the credentialing and privileging files.

We also reject plaintiffs’ contention that the court should have ordered an in camera review of the credentialing and privileging files at issue. Plaintiffs established no basis for an in camera review because there is no evidence that any part of the information sought is outside the protection of Education Law § 6527 (3) and Public Health Law § 2805-m (2) (cf. Mong v Children’s Hosp. of Buffalo, 259 AD2d 1038 [1999]). Plaintiffs’ further contention regarding the possible failure of the Hospital to comply with 45 CFR 60.10 and 60.11 is raised for the first time on appeal and thus is unpreserved for our review (see generally Ring v Jones, 13 AD3d 1078, 1079 [2004]; Oram v Capone, 206 AD2d 839, 840 [1994]).

We have considered plaintiffs’ remaining contentions and conclude that they are without merit. Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Green, Hurlbutt, Gorski and Smith, JJ.