Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
16 New York opinions name it 5 courts 2000–2026 7 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New York courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Mtr. of Subpoena Duces Tecum to Jane Doegreen2 sentences2022Additionally, Mount Sinai shall prepare a privilege log identifying all materials claimed to be protected by the quality assurance privilege and submit the documents for in camera review ( see Creekmore v PSCH, Inc., 2008 NY Slip Op 30585[U] [Sup Ct, NY County 2008], affd 60 AD3d 585, 586 [1st Dept 2009]; see generally In re Subpoena Duces Tecum to Jane Doe, Esq. , 99 NY2d 434, 442 [2003]). 2010Defendants object, claiming the protection of the quality assurance privilege (see Matter of Subpoena Duces Tecum to Jane Doe, 99 NY2d 434 [2003]). | 3 | 4 |
Kivlehan v. Waltnergreen2 sentences2022Mount Sinai failed to sustain its burden of establishing that it is entitled to invoke the quality assurance privilege for all the documents plaintiff seeks, as the only documents covered by that privilege are those generated in connection with a quality assurance review function under Education Law § 6527(3) ( see Siegel v Snyder , 202 AD3d 125, 137 [2d Dept 2021]; Kivlehan v Waltner , 36 AD3d 597, 599 [2d Dept 2007]; Little v Highland Hosp., 280 AD2d 908, 909 [4th Dept 2001]). 2009“The party seeking to invoke the quality assurance privilege bears the burden of demonstrating that the documents sought were prepared in accordance with the relevant statutes” (Kivlehan v Waltner, 36 AD3d at 598 ). | 3 | 4 |
Siegel v. Snydergreen2 sentences2026NSUH seeking to invoke the quality-assurance privilege pursuant to the foregoing provisions has the burden of establishing a right to the protection of the privilege. ( See Siegel v Snyder , 202 AD3d at 137 ). 2026NSUH seeking to invoke the quality-assurance privilege pursuant to the foregoing provisions has the burden of establishing a right to the protection of the privilege. ( See Siegel v Snyder , 202 AD3d at 137). | 2 | 2 |
Logue v. Velezgreen2 sentences2026"Credentialing files 'fall squarely within the materials that are made confidential by Education Law 6527[3] and article 28 of the Public Health Law.'" ( Lamacchia v Schwartz , 94 AD3d 712, 714 , 941 NYS2d 245 quoting Logue v Velez , 92 NY2d 13, 18 , 699 NE2d 365 , 677 NYS2d 6 [1998]). 2016Vassar further contends that these documents are immune from discovery pursuant to the quality assurance privilege (see Education Law § 6527 [3]; Public Health Law § 2805-m; Logue v Velez, 92 NY2d 13, 16-17 [1998]). | 2 | 2 |
Smart Workout, Inc. v. Environmental Control Boardgreen2 sentences2021Because defendant was required to compile the data and report to various government agencies concerning its staffing and patient care, the material is not subject to the quality assurance privilege (see Sanchez v Kateri Residence , 79 AD3d 492 [1st Dept 2010]). 2021Because defendant was required to compile the data and report to various government agencies concerning its staffing and patient care, the material is not subject to the quality assurance privilege (see Sanchez v Kateri Residence , 79 AD3d 492 [1st Dept 2010]). | 1 | 3 |
Clement v. Residencegreen2 sentences2023In opposing petitioner's motion to compel and in support of its own cross-motion for a protective order, Van Duyn failed to establish that the time-of-entry metadata was "generated by or at the behest of [its] quality assurance committee for quality assurance purposes" ( Matter of Subpoena Duces Tecum to Jane Doe , 99 NY2d 434, 441 [2003]; see Sanchez v Kateri Residence , 79 AD3d 492, 492 [1st Dept 2010]; Clement v Kateri Residence , 60 AD3d 527, 527 [1st Dept 2009]; Spakoski v Amsterdam Mem. 2010The document was properly ordered produced because the report, although utilized by the quality assurance committee, had not been prepared by or at the behest of the committee (see Clement v Kateri Residence, 60 AD3d 527 [2009]). | 1 | 2 |
KATHERINE F. v. State of NYgreen2 sentences2014(See Katherine F. v State of New York, 94 NY2d 200 [1999].) “The party seeking to invoke the quality assurance privilege bears the burden of demonstrating that the documents sought were prepared in accordance with the relevant statutes. 2013The purpose of this quality assurance privilege is “to promote the quality of care through self-review without fear of legal reprisal . . . [and] to [enable institutions to] ameliorate the causes of untoward incidents through unfettered investigation” (Katherine F. v State of New York, 94 NY2d 200, 205 [1999] [citations and internal quotation marks omitted]). | 1 | 2 |
Lamacchia v. Schwartzgreen2 sentences2026"Credentialing files 'fall squarely within the materials that are made confidential by Education Law 6527[3] and article 28 of the Public Health Law.'" ( Lamacchia v Schwartz , 94 AD3d 712, 714 , 941 NYS2d 245 quoting Logue v Velez , 92 NY2d 13, 18 , 699 NE2d 365 , 677 NYS2d 6 [1998]). 2026"Credentialing files 'fall squarely within the materials that are made confidential by Education Law 6527[3] and article 28 of the Public Health Law.'" ( Lamacchia v Schwartz , 94 AD3d 712, 714 , 941 NYS2d 245 quoting Logue v Velez , 92 NY2d 13, 18 , 699 NE2d 365 , 677 NYS2d 6 [1998]). | 1 | 1 |
Estate of Savage v. Kredentsergreen1 sentence2025Quality Assurance Privilege "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." Estate o/Savage v. Kredentser, 150 AD3d 1452, 1454 (3 rd Dept. 2017) (citations omitted); Dicostanzo v. Schwed, 146 AD3d 1044 ; Daly v. Brunswick Nursing Home, Inc., 95 AD3d 1262 (2nd Dept. 2012). | 1 | 1 |
Creekmore v. PSCH, Inc.green1 sentence2022Additionally, Mount Sinai shall prepare a privilege log identifying all materials claimed to be protected by the quality assurance privilege and submit the documents for in camera review ( see Creekmore v PSCH, Inc., 2008 NY Slip Op 30585[U] [Sup Ct, NY County 2008], affd 60 AD3d 585, 586 [1st Dept 2009]; see generally In re Subpoena Duces Tecum to Jane Doe, Esq. , 99 NY2d 434, 442 [2003]). | 1 | 1 |
In re Marzett L.green1 sentence2022Mount Sinai failed to sustain its burden of establishing that it is entitled to invoke the quality assurance privilege for all the documents plaintiff seeks, as the only documents covered by that privilege are those generated in connection with a quality assurance review function under Education Law § 6527(3) ( see Siegel v Snyder , 202 AD3d 125, 137 [2d Dept 2021]; Kivlehan v Waltner , 36 AD3d 597, 599 [2d Dept 2007]; Little v Highland Hosp., 280 AD2d 908, 909 [4th Dept 2001]). | 1 | 1 |
Klingner v. Mashioffgreen1 sentence2009Here, the appellants satisfied their burden of proof and, therefore, were entitled to the protection of Education Law § 6527 (3) (see Klingner v Mashioff, 50 AD3d 746, 747 [2008]). | 1 | 1 |
Van Caloen v. Poglincogreen1 sentence2007Ctr., 9 AD3d 41, 46 [2004]; Orner v Mount Sinai Hosp., 305 AD2d 307, 311 [2003]; Van Caloen v Poglinco, 214 AD2d 555, 557 [1995]). | 1 | 1 |
Marte v. Brooklyn Hospital Centergreen1 sentence2007Ctr., 9 AD3d 41, 46 [2004]; Orner v Mount Sinai Hosp., 305 AD2d 307, 311 [2003]; Van Caloen v Poglinco, 214 AD2d 555, 557 [1995]). | 1 | 1 |
Orner v. Mount Sinai Hospitalgreen1 sentence2007Ctr., 9 AD3d 41, 46 [2004]; Orner v Mount Sinai Hosp., 305 AD2d 307, 311 [2003]; Van Caloen v Poglinco, 214 AD2d 555, 557 [1995]). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Roque v. State of New York
green
1 sentence2025Vestal Park continues to object to the unredacted reports based on the quality assurance privilege and remedial measures doctrl?e. See, Caprara v. Chrysler Corp., 52 NY2d 114 (1981); Roque v. State ofNew York, 199 AD3d 1092 (3 rd Dept. 2021 ). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Daly v. Brunswick Nursing Home, Inc.
green
1 sentence2025Quality Assurance Privilege "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." Estate o/Savage v. Kredentser, 150 AD3d 1452, 1454 (3 rd Dept. 2017) (citations omitted); Dicostanzo v. Schwed, 146 AD3d 1044 ; Daly v. Brunswick Nursing Home, Inc., 95 AD3d 1262 (2nd Dept. 2012). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
DiCostanzo v. Schwed
green
1 sentence2025Quality Assurance Privilege "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." Estate o/Savage v. Kredentser, 150 AD3d 1452, 1454 (3 rd Dept. 2017) (citations omitted); Dicostanzo v. Schwed, 146 AD3d 1044 ; Daly v. Brunswick Nursing Home, Inc., 95 AD3d 1262 (2nd Dept. 2012). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Caprara v. Chrysler Corp.
green
1 sentence2025Vestal Park continues to object to the unredacted reports based on the quality assurance privilege and remedial measures doctrl?e. See, Caprara v. Chrysler Corp., 52 NY2d 114 (1981); Roque v. State ofNew York, 199 AD3d 1092 (3 rd Dept. 2021 ). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Swartzenberg v. Trivedi
green
1 sentence2021We find the rationale and analysis of the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, in Swartzenberg v Trivedi ( 189 AD2d 151 ) instructive, notwithstanding that the facts of that case are dissimilar. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Malta Properties 1, LLC v. Town of Malta
green
1 sentence2017Claimants’ contention that defendant does not gain the benefit of the quality assurance privilege because there was no evidence that the report prepared by Boreali and Myers was submitted or reported pursuant to the incident reporting requirements of Mental Hygiene Law § 29.29 is raised for the first time on appeal and, therefore, unpreserved for our review (see Malta Props. 1, LLC v Town of Malta, 143 AD3d 1142 , 1144 n [2016]). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
People v. Okereke
neutral
1 sentence2000Nor does it avail HHC to assert the quality assurance privilege contained in Education Law § 6527 (3), which protects against disclosure only in civil proceedings (see, People v Okereke, 117 Misc 2d 494 ; see also, Matter of St. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.