green
Positive treatment
5.8 score
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Matter of Mental Hygiene Legal Serv. v. Daniels
Finally, since the right to access and to copies are subject to the same limitations ( see MHL 33.16[c] [not applicable here]), the Second Department has held that where a medical health facility finds no reason to deny a patient access to his/her clinical record, the denial of the patient's request for [*7]copies of those same records would be arbitrary and capricious ( Matter of Billups v Rizzo , 228 AD2d 587, 588 [2d Dept 1996]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Billy Billups
v.
Robert Rizzo
v.
Robert Rizzo
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jun 17, 1996.
Cited by 2 opinions | Published
[*588] The petitioner was granted permission to review his mental health records in accordance with Mental Hygiene Law § 33.16 (b) (1), but his request for a copy of those records was denied. Mental Hygiene Law § 33.16 (b) (5) provides that a facility shall furnish a copy of any clinical record which a person is authorized to inspect. Both the right of access and the right to a copy of the clinical records are subject to the same limitations (see, Mental Hygiene Law § 33.16 [c]). Under the circumstances of this case, where the facility found no reason to deny the petitioner access to his records, its denial of his request for a copy of those records was arbitrary and capricious. O’Brien, J. P., Ritter, Pizzuto and Altman, JJ., concur.