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.
15 New York opinions name it 4 courts 1991–2025 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
In re Miguel M.green2 sentences2014Even if the disclosure failed to comply with the procedural requirements of the privacy rule, HIPAA does not mandate exclusion of the records from evidence in the circumstances of this case (cf. Matter of Miguel M. [Barron], 17 NY3d 37, 45 [2011]). 2014Even if the disclosure failed to comply with the procedural requirements of the privacy rule, HIPAA does not mandate exclusion of the records from evidence in the circumstances of this case (cf. Matter of Miguel M. [Barron], 17 NY3d 37, 45 [2011]). | 2 | 2 |
Fappiano v. New York City Police Departmentgreen2 sentences2013However, “Civil Rights Law § 50-b (1) provides a statutory exemption from disclosure for documents that tend to identify the victim of a sex offense” (Matter of Karlin v McMahon, 96 NY2d 842, 843 [2001]; see Matter of Fappiano v New York City Police Dept., 95 NY2d at 746-748 ). * Civil Rights Law § 50-b expressly prohibits the disclosure of information pertaining to the identity of victims of sex offenses, providing, in relevant part, that “[n]o report, paper, picture, photograph, court file or other documents, in the custody or possession of any public officer or employee, which identifies su 2013However, “Civil Rights Law § 50-b (1) provides a statutory exemption from disclosure for documents that tend to identify the victim of a sex offense” (Matter of Karlin v McMahon, 96 NY2d 842, 843 [2001]; see Matter of Fappiano v New York City Police Dept., 95 NY2d at 746-748 ). * Civil Rights Law § 50-b expressly prohibits the disclosure of information pertaining to the identity of victims of sex offenses, providing, in relevant part, that “[n]o report, paper, picture, photograph, court file or other documents, in the custody or possession of any public officer or employee, which identifies su | 2 | 2 |
Karlin v. McMahongreen2 sentences2013However, “Civil Rights Law § 50-b (1) provides a statutory exemption from disclosure for documents that tend to identify the victim of a sex offense” (Matter of Karlin v McMahon, 96 NY2d 842, 843 [2001]; see Matter of Fappiano v New York City Police Dept., 95 NY2d at 746-748 ). * Civil Rights Law § 50-b expressly prohibits the disclosure of information pertaining to the identity of victims of sex offenses, providing, in relevant part, that “[n]o report, paper, picture, photograph, court file or other documents, in the custody or possession of any public officer or employee, which identifies su 2013However, “Civil Rights Law § 50-b (1) provides a statutory exemption from disclosure for documents that tend to identify the victim of a sex offense” (Matter of Karlin v McMahon, 96 NY2d 842, 843 [2001]; see Matter of Fappiano v New York City Police Dept., 95 NY2d at 746-748 ). * Civil Rights Law § 50-b expressly prohibits the disclosure of information pertaining to the identity of victims of sex offenses, providing, in relevant part, that “[n]o report, paper, picture, photograph, court file or other documents, in the custody or possession of any public officer or employee, which identifies su | 2 | 2 |
People v. Ogburngreen2 sentences2013We agree with Supreme Court’s rejection of the privacy claim, and the unpreserved eavesdropping claim does not warrant modification in the interest of justice (compare People v Lasher, 58 NY2d 962, 963 [1983]; People v Ogburn, 46 AD3d 1018, 1019 [2007], lv denied 10 NY3d 769 [2008]). 2013We agree with Supreme Court’s rejection of the privacy claim, and the unpreserved eavesdropping claim does not warrant modification in the interest of justice (compare People v Lasher, 58 NY2d 962, 963 [1983]; People v Ogburn, 46 AD3d 1018, 1019 [2007], lv denied 10 NY3d 769 [2008]). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Lashergreen2 sentences2013We agree with Supreme Court’s rejection of the privacy claim, and the unpreserved eavesdropping claim does not warrant modification in the interest of justice (compare People v Lasher, 58 NY2d 962, 963 [1983]; People v Ogburn, 46 AD3d 1018, 1019 [2007], lv denied 10 NY3d 769 [2008]). 2013We agree with Supreme Court’s rejection of the privacy claim, and the unpreserved eavesdropping claim does not warrant modification in the interest of justice (compare People v Lasher, 58 NY2d 962, 963 [1983]; People v Ogburn, 46 AD3d 1018, 1019 [2007], lv denied 10 NY3d 769 [2008]). | 2 | 2 |
Arons v. Jutkowitzgreen2 sentences2023The United States Department of Health and Human Services subsequently adopted a privacy rule (hereinafter the privacy rule), which forbids covered entities, including health care providers, from disclosing an individual's protected health information without a valid authorization, except under certain circumstances as provided for under the privacy rule ( see 45 CFR parts 160, 164; Arons v Jutkowitz , 9 NY3d at 413-414 ). 2023In Arons v Jutkowitz ( 9 NY3d 393 ), the Court of Appeals considered the issue of whether, in light of the privacy rule, an attorney may interview an adverse party's treating physician ex parte, when the adverse party has affirmatively placed his or her medical condition in controversy. | 1 | 2 |
Beyah v. Goordgreen2 sentences2025See also, Beyah.-. (roord, 309 A.D.2d 1049, 1053 , 766 N.Y.S.2d 222, 227 (3d Dcp"t ?003 ); 1/urris v. Cily University of New York, Baruch Coilege, 114 A.D.2d 805 , 495 N.Y.S.2d 175 ( ls.t Dep't t 985). [Redaction of identifying names allowed \vhere deJetion \vould not impede petitioner's ability to compare hi:'i credentials to those or nL11~r professional employees hut would protect individuals tnvol vc<l from unwarranted invasion or Lheir pel'sonal privacy I, Ac{:ordingly, this Court finds thm the portion l)r the petition compelling disc lo sure of 1-'0lL Request # 1 is granted in part, and t 2025See also, Beyah.-. (roord, 309 A.D.2d 1049, 1053 , 766 N.Y.S.2d 222, 227 (3d Dcp"t ?003 ); 1/urris v. Cily University of New York, Baruch Coilege, 114 A.D.2d 805 , 495 N.Y.S.2d 175 ( ls.t Dep't t 985). [Redaction of identifying names allowed \vhere deJetion \vould not impede petitioner's ability to compare hi:'i credentials to those or nL11~r professional employees hut would protect individuals tnvol vc<l from unwarranted invasion or Lheir pel'sonal privacy I, Ac{:ordingly, this Court finds thm the portion l)r the petition compelling disc lo sure of 1-'0lL Request # 1 is granted in part, and t | 1 | 1 |
S.B. v. U.B.green1 sentence2016(See CPLR 4504 [doctor, nurse], 4507 [psychologist], 4508 [social worker].) Specifically, the psychologist-patient privilege, codified in CPLR 4507, provides that “confidential relations and communications between a psychologist . . . and his client are placed on the same basis as those provided by law between attorney and client, and nothing in such article shall be construed to require any such privileged communications to be disclosed.” Accordingly, “[a] psychologist, like an attorney, may not be called to testify to the accuracy of a client’s story or provide records of psychological treat | 1 | 1 |
People v. Greenegreen1 sentence2007County, 98 NY2d at 532-533 ), but to the physical blood sample itself, if constitutional safeguards have been met prior to the seizure of the sample, a patient may not assert a privacy claim so as to warrant suppression of the evidence (see Schmerber v California, 384 US at 770-772 ; People v Greene, 36 AD3d 219, 228 [2006], affd 9 NY3d 277 [2007]). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Charada T.
green
2 sentences2014Respondent failed to preserve his argument that the handwritten homework assignments completed as part of his participation in a sex offender treatment program were disclosed in violation of the privacy rule promulgated by the United States Department of Health and Human Services (45 CFR parts 160, 164) and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) (Pub L 104-191, 110 US Stat 1936 [codified in various titles of the United States Code]) and therefore could not be entered into evidence at his trial in this Mental Hygiene Law article 10 proceeding (see Matter of State of New 2014Respondent failed to preserve his argument that the handwritten homework assignments completed as part of his participation in a sex offender treatment program were disclosed in violation of the privacy rule promulgated by the United States Department of Health and Human Services (45 CFR parts 160, 164) and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) (Pub L 104-191, 110 US Stat 1936 [codified in various titles of the United States Code]) and therefore could not be entered into evidence at his trial in this Mental Hygiene Law article 10 proceeding (see Matter of State of New | 2 | 2014–2014 |
People v. Greene
green
2 sentences2011Indeed, we have held that suppression is not required in such a case where evidence was obtained as a result of a violation of New York’s physician-patient privilege (People v Greene, 9 NY3d 277 [2007]). 2007County, 98 NY2d at 532-533 ), but to the physical blood sample itself, if constitutional safeguards have been met prior to the seizure of the sample, a patient may not assert a privacy claim so as to warrant suppression of the evidence (see Schmerber v California, 384 US at 770-772 ; People v Greene, 36 AD3d 219, 228 [2006], affd 9 NY3d 277 [2007]). | 2 | 2007–2011 |
Beverley v. Choices Women's Medical Center, Inc.
green
2 sentences1991The Appellate Division modified by dismissing the defamation claim and remitted for a trial on damages with respect to the privacy claim ( 141 AD2d 89 ). 1991The Appellate Division modified by dismissing the defamation claim and remitted for a trial on damages with respect to the privacy claim ( 141 AD2d 89 ). | 2 | 1991–1991 |
Harris v. City University of New York, Baruch College
green
2 sentences2025See also, Beyah.-. (roord, 309 A.D.2d 1049, 1053 , 766 N.Y.S.2d 222, 227 (3d Dcp"t ?003 ); 1/urris v. Cily University of New York, Baruch Coilege, 114 A.D.2d 805 , 495 N.Y.S.2d 175 ( ls.t Dep't t 985). [Redaction of identifying names allowed \vhere deJetion \vould not impede petitioner's ability to compare hi:'i credentials to those or nL11~r professional employees hut would protect individuals tnvol vc<l from unwarranted invasion or Lheir pel'sonal privacy I, Ac{:ordingly, this Court finds thm the portion l)r the petition compelling disc lo sure of 1-'0lL Request # 1 is granted in part, and t 2025See also, Beyah.-. (roord, 309 A.D.2d 1049, 1053 , 766 N.Y.S.2d 222, 227 (3d Dcp"t ?003 ); 1/urris v. Cily University of New York, Baruch Coilege, 114 A.D.2d 805 , 495 N.Y.S.2d 175 ( ls.t Dep't t 985). [Redaction of identifying names allowed \vhere deJetion \vould not impede petitioner's ability to compare hi:'i credentials to those or nL11~r professional employees hut would protect individuals tnvol vc<l from unwarranted invasion or Lheir pel'sonal privacy I, Ac{:ordingly, this Court finds thm the portion l)r the petition compelling disc lo sure of 1-'0lL Request # 1 is granted in part, and t | 1 | 2025–2025 |
New York Times Co. v. Regenhard
green
2 sentences2024None of the six is relevant to this case, and so we must decide whether any invasion of privacy here is ‘unwarranted’ by balancing the privacy interests at stake against the public interest in disclosure of the information” (Matter of The New York Times Co. v City of New York Fire Dept., 4 NY3d 477, 485 , 796 NYS2d 302 [2005]). 2024None of the six is relevant to this case, and so we must decide whether any invasion of privacy here is ‘unwarranted’ by balancing the privacy interests at stake against the public interest in disclosure of the information” (Matter of The New York Times Co. v City of New York Fire Dept., 4 NY3d 477, 485 , 796 NYS2d 302 [2005]). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Finger v. Omni Publications International., Ltd.
green
1 sentence2015Further, the depiction of children, by itself, does not create special circumstances which should make a privacy claim more readily available (see Finger, 77 NY2d at 138 ). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Schmerber v. California
green
1 sentence2007County, 98 NY2d at 532-533 ), but to the physical blood sample itself, if constitutional safeguards have been met prior to the seizure of the sample, a patient may not assert a privacy claim so as to warrant suppression of the evidence (see Schmerber v California, 384 US at 770-772 ; People v Greene, 36 AD3d 219, 228 [2006], affd 9 NY3d 277 [2007]). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
New York City Health & Hospitals Corp. v. Morgenthau
green
1 sentence2007County, 98 NY2d at 532-533 ), but to the physical blood sample itself, if constitutional safeguards have been met prior to the seizure of the sample, a patient may not assert a privacy claim so as to warrant suppression of the evidence (see Schmerber v California, 384 US at 770-772 ; People v Greene, 36 AD3d 219, 228 [2006], affd 9 NY3d 277 [2007]). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
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.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.