confidentiality requirement in New York

1987Under these circumstances, the failure of the Legislature to adopt the proposed amendment abrogating the confidentiality requirement is persuasive evidence of the legislative intent. 6 III In regard to the constitutional claims raised by KnightRidder, we agree with the Appellate Division that whatever qualified privilege may exist under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution does not protect the material sought here since the taped interview presumably contains relevant information necessary to the Grand Jury investigation and unavailable from other sources (see, Branzburg v Hay

1986Some courts have opined that the confidentiality requirement still exists, unaffected by the 1981 changes to the Shield Law, and have applied such requirement (see, e.g., Matter of Pennzoil Co., 108 AD2d 666 ; People v Korkala, 99 AD2d 161 ; Hennigan v Buffalo Courier Express Co., 85 AD2d 924 ), 1 while others expressed the view that the amendment abolished the confidentiality requirement and created an absolute privilege for journalists (see, e.g., Wilkins v Kalla, 118 Misc 2d 34, 36-37 ).

1998Its purpose is obvious: “to save recipients [of pub- lie welfare] from embarrassment.” (Doe v Greco, 89 Misc 2d 187, 189 [Sup Ct, Ulster County 1976], affd 62 AD2d 498 [3d Dept 1978].) This confidentiality requirement reflected not only State concerns, but was mandated by Federal law which required such confidentiality in order for the State to be eligible to receive Federal funds for its social welfare programs. 7 Although section 136 (1) originally did not contain an express provision either allowing news organizations to inspect public welfare records or an express prohibition against such

1988(Doe v Greco, 62 AD2d 498 [1978].) Yet, the suppression of information cannot exceed the intent of the statute.

1995Matter of WBAI-FM v Proskin, 42 AD2d 5 [1973]; Matter of People v Wolf, 69 Misc 2d 256 [1972], affd 39 AD2d 864 [1972].) Even though the statute was amended in both 1975 and 1981 to further protect journalists from requests for information or disclosure of sources, 3 some lower courts still upheld the confidentiality requirement.

1983Protection of unsolicited news is fully compatible with the confidentiality requirement (see Matter of WBAI-FM v Proskin, supra, Cooke, J., dissenting).

1987After the passage of the 1981 amendments, the question whether the statute’s protection extended to nonconfidential information was again litigated and again, the unanimous appellate authority in this State concluded that the cloak of confidentiality requirement still obtained (see, People v Korkala, 99 AD2d 161 [1st Dept]; Hennigan v Buffalo Courier Express Co., 85 AD2d 924 [4th Dept]; see also, Matter of Pennzoil Co., 108 AD2d 666 ; People v Troiano, 127 Misc 2d 738 ; First United Fund v American Banker, 127 Misc 2d 247 ; People v Bova, 118 Misc 2d 14 ; contra, Wilkins v Kalla, 118 Misc 2d 3

1986Some courts have opined that the confidentiality requirement still exists, unaffected by the 1981 changes to the Shield Law, and have applied such requirement (see, e.g., Matter of Pennzoil Co., 108 AD2d 666 ; People v Korkala, 99 AD2d 161 ; Hennigan v Buffalo Courier Express Co., 85 AD2d 924 ), 1 while others expressed the view that the amendment abolished the confidentiality requirement and created an absolute privilege for journalists (see, e.g., Wilkins v Kalla, 118 Misc 2d 34, 36-37 ).

1987Interestingly, in the period between enactment of the 1981 amendment and this court’s decision in 1984 in Matter of Beach v Shanley ( 62 NY2d 241 ), some trial courts began themselves to pull back from the confidentiality requirement, noting that it never did encumber the plain protections afforded by the statute even in its original enactment (see, People v Iannaccone, 112 Misc 2d 1057 ; Lawless v Clay, 9 Media L Rep 1223 [BNA]; Wilkins v Kalla, 118 Misc 2d 34 ; CBA Elecs. v Ellenberg, 10 Media L Rep 1095 [BNA]).

1986Some courts have opined that the confidentiality requirement still exists, unaffected by the 1981 changes to the Shield Law, and have applied such requirement (see, e.g., Matter of Pennzoil Co., 108 AD2d 666 ; People v Korkala, 99 AD2d 161 ; Hennigan v Buffalo Courier Express Co., 85 AD2d 924 ), 1 while others expressed the view that the amendment abolished the confidentiality requirement and created an absolute privilege for journalists (see, e.g., Wilkins v Kalla, 118 Misc 2d 34, 36-37 ).

2002The obligation to safeguard patients’ confidences directly affects the quality of medical care (cf, Finley v Giacobbe, 827 F Supp 215, 221 ).

1999Accordingly, the IAS Court was correct to set aside the verdict, because there was “no valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could possibly lead rational men to the conclusion reached by the jury on the basis of the evidence presented at trial” (Cohen v Hallmark Cards, 45 NY2d 493, 499 ).

1997If Congress had intended that suppression and dismissal were the appropriate remedies for a violation of a confidentiality it would have so provided." The court finds the foregoing holding to be persuasive authority and that the current version of the Federal statute, 42 USC § 290dd-2 (f), which provides "Any person who violates any provision of this section or any regulation issued pursuant to this section shall be fined", is the exclusive remedy available for a violation of the confidentiality requirement of 42 USC § 290dd-2. 2 Of course, the State is not subject to a fine in this court (Sha

1995Matter of WBAI-FM v Proskin, 42 AD2d 5 [1973]; Matter of People v Wolf, 69 Misc 2d 256 [1972], affd 39 AD2d 864 [1972].) Even though the statute was amended in both 1975 and 1981 to further protect journalists from requests for information or disclosure of sources, 3 some lower courts still upheld the confidentiality requirement.

1995(See, People v Korkala, 121 Misc 2d 291 [1983], affd as mod 99 AD2d 161 [1984]; People v Le Grand, 67 AD2d 446 [1979].) However, the Court of Appeals decision in Matter of Beach v Shanley ( 62 NY2d 241 [1984]) overruled this interpretation.

1995Matter of WBAI-FM v Proskin, 42 AD2d 5 [1973]; Matter of People v Wolf, 69 Misc 2d 256 [1972], affd 39 AD2d 864 [1972].) Even though the statute was amended in both 1975 and 1981 to further protect journalists from requests for information or disclosure of sources, 3 some lower courts still upheld the confidentiality requirement.

1995(See, People v Korkala, 121 Misc 2d 291 [1983], affd as mod 99 AD2d 161 [1984]; People v Le Grand, 67 AD2d 446 [1979].) However, the Court of Appeals decision in Matter of Beach v Shanley ( 62 NY2d 241 [1984]) overruled this interpretation.

1992Co., 98 NY 447, 453 ; see, Matter of Abramovich v Board of Educ., 46 NY2d 450, 456 , cert denied, 444 US 845 [waiver of due process right to a hearing]; Matter of Sonenberg v Fuller, 114 AD2d 677 [waiver of due process and equal protection rights].) Of course, given a showing of cause sufficient to invalidate a contract, such as fraud, collusion, mistake or some such similar ground, a court may relieve a party from the consequences of his or her stipulation. (1420 Concourse Corp. v Cruz, 135 AD2d 371, 372 .) Quite apart from the latter considerations, the wife contends that in declining to inc

1992Co., 98 NY 447, 453 ; see, Matter of Abramovich v Board of Educ., 46 NY2d 450, 456 , cert denied, 444 US 845 [waiver of due process right to a hearing]; Matter of Sonenberg v Fuller, 114 AD2d 677 [waiver of due process and equal protection rights].) Of course, given a showing of cause sufficient to invalidate a contract, such as fraud, collusion, mistake or some such similar ground, a court may relieve a party from the consequences of his or her stipulation. (1420 Concourse Corp. v Cruz, 135 AD2d 371, 372 .) Quite apart from the latter considerations, the wife contends that in declining to inc

1992Co., 98 NY 447, 453 ; see, Matter of Abramovich v Board of Educ., 46 NY2d 450, 456 , cert denied, 444 US 845 [waiver of due process right to a hearing]; Matter of Sonenberg v Fuller, 114 AD2d 677 [waiver of due process and equal protection rights].) Of course, given a showing of cause sufficient to invalidate a contract, such as fraud, collusion, mistake or some such similar ground, a court may relieve a party from the consequences of his or her stipulation. (1420 Concourse Corp. v Cruz, 135 AD2d 371, 372 .) Quite apart from the latter considerations, the wife contends that in declining to inc

1992When an individual commences a civil action and affirmatively places the information protected by that statute in issue, the confidentiality privilege is waived (see, Wright v Snow, 175 AD2d 451 , lv dismissed 79 NY2d 822 ).

1992When an individual commences a civil action and affirmatively places the information protected by that statute in issue, the confidentiality privilege is waived (see, Wright v Snow, 175 AD2d 451 , lv dismissed 79 NY2d 822 ).

1990(Matter of Doe v Axelrod, 123 AD2d 21 [1st Dept 1986].) In that case four patients alleged that a doctor had sexually abused them.

1990The court in Whalen (supra) noted that, pursuant to Public Health Law § 230 (10) (1), a patient, whose medical records were obtained for a Board proceeding, may be found to have waived the confidentiality privilege, although it would be up to the doctor seeking the records to provide affirmative proof of such waiver. ( 54 NY2d, at 98-99 .) Expanding on this reasoning, the First Department allowed disclosure at a Board hearing of the prior complaints made to the Board against a doctor by complainants who testified against him at the hearing.

1990The court in Whalen (supra) noted that, pursuant to Public Health Law § 230 (10) (1), a patient, whose medical records were obtained for a Board proceeding, may be found to have waived the confidentiality privilege, although it would be up to the doctor seeking the records to provide affirmative proof of such waiver. ( 54 NY2d, at 98-99 .) Expanding on this reasoning, the First Department allowed disclosure at a Board hearing of the prior complaints made to the Board against a doctor by complainants who testified against him at the hearing.

1989(Matter of Levin v Guest, 112 AD2d 830 , affd 67 NY2d 629 .) The record submitted to this court in camera provides sufficient documentation to establish the minimum threshold requirement and sufficiently establishes that the Board acted with proper authority having first presented the substance of its investigation for approval to a committee on professional conduct as required by the Public Health Law.