Exelbert v. State, 140 A.D.2d 665 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988). · Go Syfert
Exelbert v. State, 140 A.D.2d 665 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
8 citation events (3 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Bellamy v. State of New York (nyappdiv, 2016-02-25)
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Bellamy v. State of New York
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
In cases such as the one before us, “[information concerning medical diagnosis and treatment is privileged and may not be disclosed absent a showing that a compelling interest overrides the privilege, or that the interests of justice *1248 significantly outweigh the need for and the right of a mentally disabled patient to confidentiality” (Exelbert v State of New York, 140 AD2d 665, 665 [1988] [citations omitted]; see CPLR 4504; Mental Hygiene Law § 33.13 [c] [1]; [e]; J.Z. v South Oaks Hosp., 67 AD3d 645, 645-646 [2009]; Sohan v Long Is.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Trudy L. Exelbert
v.
State of New York
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
May 31, 1988.
140 A.D.2d 665
Cited by 5 opinions  |  Published

This claim for damages is premised on an alleged assault of claimant Trudy Exelbert by a nonparty patient under the care of the State of New York. By order dated October 7, 1986, the Court of Claims correctly redacted all medical information from the State’s records concerning that patient before disclosure of those records to the claimants (cf., Brier v State of New York, 95 AD2d 788; see, Matter of Ashford v Brunswick Psychiatric Center, 90 AD2d 848; Moore v St. John’s Episcopal Hosp., 89 AD2d 618; Homere v State of New York, 41 AD2d 797; Katz v State of New York, 41 AD2d 879; Mayer v Albany Med. Center Hosp., 37 AD2d 1011). Information concerning medical diagnosis and treatment is privileged (CPLR 4504) and may not be disclosed absent a showing that a compelling interest overrides the privilege (Matter of Camperlengo v Blum, 56 NY2d 251; Matter of Jenkins v Martin, 99 AD2d 811; Perry v Fiumano, 61 AD2d 512), or that the interests of justice significantly outweigh the need for and the right of a mentally disabled patient to confidentiality (see, Mental Hygiene Law § 33.13 [c] [1]; see also, Mental Hygiene Law § 33.01; cf., Katz v State of New York, supra). The claimants’ intent to expand upon the theory of liability provides no basis for the order of May 14, 1987, directing the State to disclose to the claimants[*666] specified medical information contained in the records of the nonparty patient (see, Matter of Ashford v Brunswick Psychiatric Center, supra; Katz v State of New York, supra). Thompson, J. P., Brown, Weinstein and Harwood, JJ., concur.