psychologist-patient privilege in New York

12 New York opinions name it 4 courts 1985–2025 1 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.

Followed or applied (11)

Case	Followed	Cited
In re Richard SS.green nyappdiv · 2006 · cited in 2 New York opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014 2 sentences 2014Respondent argues that the child placed his mental state in issue, pursuant to CPLR 3121, by stating that the incidents of abuse caused him to feel depressed, and therefore waived the psychologist-patient privilege (see Matter of Richard SS., 29 AD3d 1118, 1124 [3d Dept 2006] [“a party’s mental health records are subject to discovery where that party has placed his or her mental health at issue”]). 2014Respondent argues that the child placed his mental state in issue, pursuant to CPLR 3121, by stating that the incidents of abuse caused him to feel depressed, and therefore waived the psychologist-patient privilege (see Matter of Richard SS., 29 AD3d 1118, 1124 [3d Dept 2006] [“a party’s mental health records are subject to discovery where that party has placed his or her mental health at issue”]).	2	2
Krystal G. v. Roman Catholic Diocesegreen nysupct · 2011 · cited in 1 New York opinions naming this issue, 2025–2025 1 sentence 2025Krystal G. v Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn , 34 Misc 3d at 544).	1	1
S.B. v. U.B.green nysupct · 2012 · cited in 1 New York opinions naming this issue, 2016–2016 1 sentence 2016(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
Arons v. Jutkowitzgreen ny · 2007 · cited in 1 New York opinions naming this issue, 2016–2016 1 sentence 2016(See 45 CFR parts 160, 164.) Disclosure is authorized “in the course of any judicial or administrative proceeding,” in response to either a court order or subpoena. (45 CFR 164.512 [e] [1] [i], [ii].) “[T]he Privacy Rule sets out a floor of federal privacy protections whereby state laws that are ‘contrary’ to the Privacy Rule are preempted unless a specific exception applies.” (Arons v Jutkowitz, 9 NY3d 393, 414 [2007].) In New York State, the Mental Hygiene Law provides greater protection than the federal privacy rule.	1	1
State v. Floyd Y.green nyappdiv · 2012 · cited in 1 New York opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013 1 sentence 2013The Appellate Division found that Supreme Court properly admitted some, but not all, of the basis hearsay under the “professional reliability exception” and rejected the psychologist-privilege argument (Matter of State of New York v Floyd Y, 102 AD3d 80, 87-88 [1st Dept 2012]).	1	1
Dillenbeck v. Hessgreen ny · 1989 · cited in 1 New York opinions naming this issue, 2005–2005 1 sentence 2005The physician-patient privilege, like the psychologist-patient privilege, did not exist at common law and is “entirely a creature of statute” (Dillenbeck v Hess, 73 NY2d 278, 283 [1989]; see CPLR 4504, 4507), and we conclude that the policy interest underlying the statutory privilege must yield to defendant’s constitutional right of confrontation (see Davis, 415 US at 320 ; State v Hembd, 305 Minn 120, 232 NW2d 872 [1975]).	1	1
Davis v. Alaskagreen scotus · 1974 · cited in 1 New York opinions naming this issue, 2005–2005 1 sentence 2005The physician-patient privilege, like the psychologist-patient privilege, did not exist at common law and is “entirely a creature of statute” (Dillenbeck v Hess, 73 NY2d 278, 283 [1989]; see CPLR 4504, 4507), and we conclude that the policy interest underlying the statutory privilege must yield to defendant’s constitutional right of confrontation (see Davis, 415 US at 320 ; State v Hembd, 305 Minn 120, 232 NW2d 872 [1975]).	1	1
Shepard v. Rollgreen nyappdiv · 2000 · cited in 1 New York opinions naming this issue, 2005–2005 1 sentence 2005See, Shepard , 278 AD2d 755 (the court permitted custody litigant's psychologist to testify in contravention of the psychologist-patient privilege); Frierson , 9 AD3d 612 (the court found that written waiver or consent was unnecessary for release of information concerning custody litigant's psychiatric treatment).	1	1
Anker v. Brodnitzgreen nyappdiv · 1979 · cited in 1 New York opinions naming this issue, 1999–1999 1 sentence 1999(See, Oringer v Rotkin, 162 AD2d 113 ; cf., Madden v Creative Servs., 84 NY2d 738, 744 .) Thus, a cause of action has been recognized for violation of the physician-patient privilege (see, Doe v Roe, 190 AD2d 463 ; Tighe v Ginsberg, 146 AD2d 268 ; see also, Anker v Brodnitz, 98 Misc 2d 148, 152-153 , affd 73 AD2d 589 , Iv dismissed 51 NY2d 703 ); the psychologist-patient privilege (Oringer v Rotkin, supra), the psychiatrist-patient privilege (MacDonald v Clinger, 84 AD2d 482 ); the social worker-client privilege (Harley v Druzba, 169 AD2d 1001 ; [as to scope of privilege in terms of confidenti	1	1
Anker v. Brodnitzgreen nysupct · 1979 · cited in 1 New York opinions naming this issue, 1999–1999 1 sentence 1999(See, Oringer v Rotkin, 162 AD2d 113 ; cf., Madden v Creative Servs., 84 NY2d 738, 744 .) Thus, a cause of action has been recognized for violation of the physician-patient privilege (see, Doe v Roe, 190 AD2d 463 ; Tighe v Ginsberg, 146 AD2d 268 ; see also, Anker v Brodnitz, 98 Misc 2d 148, 152-153 , affd 73 AD2d 589 , Iv dismissed 51 NY2d 703 ); the psychologist-patient privilege (Oringer v Rotkin, supra), the psychiatrist-patient privilege (MacDonald v Clinger, 84 AD2d 482 ); the social worker-client privilege (Harley v Druzba, 169 AD2d 1001 ; [as to scope of privilege in terms of confidenti	1	1
People v. Lynchgreen ny · 1968 · cited in 1 New York opinions naming this issue, 1985–1985	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (29)

Case	Cited	Years
Siegel v. Snyder green nyappdiv · 2021 1 sentence 2025Both privileges recognize that by maintaining the confidentiality of both forms of professional records, a public policy is served whereby persons are encouraged to seek necessary assistance where sensitive information is expected to be disclosed ( see Matter of Grand Jury Proceedings [Doe] , 56 NY2d 348, 352 ; Siegel v Snyder , 202 AD3d 125, 131 ).	1	2025–2025
In Re an Application to Quash a Subpoena Duces Tecum in Grand Jury Proceedings green ny · 1982 1 sentence 2025Both privileges recognize that by maintaining the confidentiality of both forms of professional records, a public policy is served whereby persons are encouraged to seek necessary assistance where sensitive information is expected to be disclosed ( see Matter of Grand Jury Proceedings [Doe] , 56 NY2d 348, 352 ; Siegel v Snyder , 202 AD3d 125, 131 ).	1	2025–2025
Brown v. Telerep, Inc. green nyappdiv · 1999 1 sentence 2025Like the other privileges discussed here, qualifying psychologist-patient communications and records cannot be disclosed absent a waiver of the privilege by the patient ( see Brown v Telerep, Inc. , 263 AD2d 378, 379 ).	1	2025–2025
People v. Rivera green nyappdiv · 2012 1 sentence 2012The psychologist-patient privilege is broadly construed and does not contain a general public interest exception (People v Rivera, 99 AD3d 535 [2012]).	1	2012–2012
State v. Hembd green minn · 1975 2 sentences 2005The physician-patient privilege, like the psychologist-patient privilege, did not exist at common law and is “entirely a creature of statute” (Dillenbeck v Hess, 73 NY2d 278, 283 [1989]; see CPLR 4504, 4507), and we conclude that the policy interest underlying the statutory privilege must yield to defendant’s constitutional right of confrontation (see Davis, 415 US at 320 ; State v Hembd, 305 Minn 120, 232 NW2d 872 [1975]). 2005In Hembd , the Supreme Court of Minnesota held that a state’s evidentiary and privilege rules are “subordinate to the constitutional right of confrontation implicit in the right of cross-examination” (305 Minn at 124, 232 NW2d at 874 ).	1	2005–2005
Frierson v. Goldston green nyappdiv · 2004 1 sentence 2005See, Shepard , 278 AD2d 755 (the court permitted custody litigant's psychologist to testify in contravention of the psychologist-patient privilege); Frierson , 9 AD3d 612 (the court found that written waiver or consent was unnecessary for release of information concerning custody litigant's psychiatric treatment).	1	2005–2005
Baecher v. Baecher green nyappdiv · 1977 1 sentence 2000Family Court did not err by permitting respondent’s psychologist to testify in contravention of the psychologist-patient privilege (see, CPLR 4507) as that privilege has been held to have been waived by a party actively contesting the issue of custody (see, Baecher v Baecher, 58 AD2d 821 , lv denied 43 NY2d 645 ).	1	2000–2000
Madden v. Creative Services, Inc. green ny · 1995 1 sentence 1999(See, Oringer v Rotkin, 162 AD2d 113 ; cf., Madden v Creative Servs., 84 NY2d 738, 744 .) Thus, a cause of action has been recognized for violation of the physician-patient privilege (see, Doe v Roe, 190 AD2d 463 ; Tighe v Ginsberg, 146 AD2d 268 ; see also, Anker v Brodnitz, 98 Misc 2d 148, 152-153 , affd 73 AD2d 589 , Iv dismissed 51 NY2d 703 ); the psychologist-patient privilege (Oringer v Rotkin, supra), the psychiatrist-patient privilege (MacDonald v Clinger, 84 AD2d 482 ); the social worker-client privilege (Harley v Druzba, 169 AD2d 1001 ; [as to scope of privilege in terms of confidenti	1	1999–1999
Linfield v. Board of Higher Education neutral nyappdiv · 1978 1 sentence 1999Socy. v Welfare Inspector Gen., 91 Misc 2d 383 , affd 65 AD2d 734 ]); and the attorney-client privilege (Krouner v Koplovitz, 175 AD2d 531 ).	1	1999–1999
MacDonald v. Clinger green nyappdiv · 1982 1 sentence 1999(See, Oringer v Rotkin, 162 AD2d 113 ; cf., Madden v Creative Servs., 84 NY2d 738, 744 .) Thus, a cause of action has been recognized for violation of the physician-patient privilege (see, Doe v Roe, 190 AD2d 463 ; Tighe v Ginsberg, 146 AD2d 268 ; see also, Anker v Brodnitz, 98 Misc 2d 148, 152-153 , affd 73 AD2d 589 , Iv dismissed 51 NY2d 703 ); the psychologist-patient privilege (Oringer v Rotkin, supra), the psychiatrist-patient privilege (MacDonald v Clinger, 84 AD2d 482 ); the social worker-client privilege (Harley v Druzba, 169 AD2d 1001 ; [as to scope of privilege in terms of confidenti	1	1999–1999
Community Service Society v. Welfare Inspector General green nysupct · 1977 1 sentence 1999Socy. v Welfare Inspector Gen., 91 Misc 2d 383 , affd 65 AD2d 734 ]); and the attorney-client privilege (Krouner v Koplovitz, 175 AD2d 531 ).	1	1999–1999
Tighe v. Ginsberg green nyappdiv · 1989 1 sentence 1999(See, Oringer v Rotkin, 162 AD2d 113 ; cf., Madden v Creative Servs., 84 NY2d 738, 744 .) Thus, a cause of action has been recognized for violation of the physician-patient privilege (see, Doe v Roe, 190 AD2d 463 ; Tighe v Ginsberg, 146 AD2d 268 ; see also, Anker v Brodnitz, 98 Misc 2d 148, 152-153 , affd 73 AD2d 589 , Iv dismissed 51 NY2d 703 ); the psychologist-patient privilege (Oringer v Rotkin, supra), the psychiatrist-patient privilege (MacDonald v Clinger, 84 AD2d 482 ); the social worker-client privilege (Harley v Druzba, 169 AD2d 1001 ; [as to scope of privilege in terms of confidenti	1	1999–1999
Oringer v. Rotkin green nyappdiv · 1990 2 sentences 1999(See, Oringer v Rotkin, 162 AD2d 113 ; cf., Madden v Creative Servs., 84 NY2d 738, 744 .) Thus, a cause of action has been recognized for violation of the physician-patient privilege (see, Doe v Roe, 190 AD2d 463 ; Tighe v Ginsberg, 146 AD2d 268 ; see also, Anker v Brodnitz, 98 Misc 2d 148, 152-153 , affd 73 AD2d 589 , Iv dismissed 51 NY2d 703 ); the psychologist-patient privilege (Oringer v Rotkin, supra), the psychiatrist-patient privilege (MacDonald v Clinger, 84 AD2d 482 ); the social worker-client privilege (Harley v Druzba, 169 AD2d 1001 ; [as to scope of privilege in terms of confidenti 1999(See, Oringer v Rotkin, 162 AD2d 113 ; cf., Madden v Creative Servs., 84 NY2d 738, 744 .) Thus, a cause of action has been recognized for violation of the physician-patient privilege (see, Doe v Roe, 190 AD2d 463 ; Tighe v Ginsberg, 146 AD2d 268 ; see also, Anker v Brodnitz, 98 Misc 2d 148, 152-153 , affd 73 AD2d 589 , Iv dismissed 51 NY2d 703 ); the psychologist-patient privilege (Oringer v Rotkin, supra), the psychiatrist-patient privilege (MacDonald v Clinger, 84 AD2d 482 ); the social worker-client privilege (Harley v Druzba, 169 AD2d 1001 ; [as to scope of privilege in terms of confidenti	1	1999–1999
Harley v. Druzba green nyappdiv · 1991 1 sentence 1999(See, Oringer v Rotkin, 162 AD2d 113 ; cf., Madden v Creative Servs., 84 NY2d 738, 744 .) Thus, a cause of action has been recognized for violation of the physician-patient privilege (see, Doe v Roe, 190 AD2d 463 ; Tighe v Ginsberg, 146 AD2d 268 ; see also, Anker v Brodnitz, 98 Misc 2d 148, 152-153 , affd 73 AD2d 589 , Iv dismissed 51 NY2d 703 ); the psychologist-patient privilege (Oringer v Rotkin, supra), the psychiatrist-patient privilege (MacDonald v Clinger, 84 AD2d 482 ); the social worker-client privilege (Harley v Druzba, 169 AD2d 1001 ; [as to scope of privilege in terms of confidenti	1	1999–1999
Krouner v. Koplovitz green nyappdiv · 1991 1 sentence 1999Socy. v Welfare Inspector Gen., 91 Misc 2d 383 , affd 65 AD2d 734 ]); and the attorney-client privilege (Krouner v Koplovitz, 175 AD2d 531 ).	1	1999–1999
Doe v. Roe green nyappdiv · 1993 1 sentence 1999(See, Oringer v Rotkin, 162 AD2d 113 ; cf., Madden v Creative Servs., 84 NY2d 738, 744 .) Thus, a cause of action has been recognized for violation of the physician-patient privilege (see, Doe v Roe, 190 AD2d 463 ; Tighe v Ginsberg, 146 AD2d 268 ; see also, Anker v Brodnitz, 98 Misc 2d 148, 152-153 , affd 73 AD2d 589 , Iv dismissed 51 NY2d 703 ); the psychologist-patient privilege (Oringer v Rotkin, supra), the psychiatrist-patient privilege (MacDonald v Clinger, 84 AD2d 482 ); the social worker-client privilege (Harley v Druzba, 169 AD2d 1001 ; [as to scope of privilege in terms of confidenti	1	1999–1999
People v. Tissois green ny · 1988 1 sentence 1999(See, Oringer v Rotkin, 162 AD2d 113 ; cf., Madden v Creative Servs., 84 NY2d 738, 744 .) Thus, a cause of action has been recognized for violation of the physician-patient privilege (see, Doe v Roe, 190 AD2d 463 ; Tighe v Ginsberg, 146 AD2d 268 ; see also, Anker v Brodnitz, 98 Misc 2d 148, 152-153 , affd 73 AD2d 589 , Iv dismissed 51 NY2d 703 ); the psychologist-patient privilege (Oringer v Rotkin, supra), the psychiatrist-patient privilege (MacDonald v Clinger, 84 AD2d 482 ); the social worker-client privilege (Harley v Druzba, 169 AD2d 1001 ; [as to scope of privilege in terms of confidenti	1	1999–1999
People v. Cruickshank green nyappdiv · 1985 1 sentence 1989(See, People v Segal, 54 NY2d 58 [1981]; People v Edney, 39 NY2d 620 [1976]; People v Al-Kanani, 33 NY2d 260 [1973], cert denied 417 US 916 [1974]; Matter of Lee v County Ct., 27 NY2d 432 [1971], cert denied 404 US 823 [1971]; People v Cruickshank, 105 AD2d 325 [3d Dept 1985], affd on other grounds sub nom.	1	1989–1989
Lee v. County Ct. of Erie County green ny · 1971	1	1989–1989
Webster v. Offshore Food Service, Inc. green scotus · 1971	1	1989–1989
Mendes v. Railway Express Agency, Inc. green scotus · 1974	1	1989–1989
People v. Al-Kanani green ny · 1973 1 sentence 1989(See, People v Segal, 54 NY2d 58 [1981]; People v Edney, 39 NY2d 620 [1976]; People v Al-Kanani, 33 NY2d 260 [1973], cert denied 417 US 916 [1974]; Matter of Lee v County Ct., 27 NY2d 432 [1971], cert denied 404 US 823 [1971]; People v Cruickshank, 105 AD2d 325 [3d Dept 1985], affd on other grounds sub nom.	1	1989–1989
People v. Edney green ny · 1976 1 sentence 1989(See, People v Segal, 54 NY2d 58 [1981]; People v Edney, 39 NY2d 620 [1976]; People v Al-Kanani, 33 NY2d 260 [1973], cert denied 417 US 916 [1974]; Matter of Lee v County Ct., 27 NY2d 432 [1971], cert denied 404 US 823 [1971]; People v Cruickshank, 105 AD2d 325 [3d Dept 1985], affd on other grounds sub nom.	1	1989–1989
People v. Segal green ny · 1981	1	1989–1989
People v. Moore green nyappdiv · 1973	1	1985–1985
Kaufman v. Rosenshine neutral nyappdiv · 1904	1	1985–1985
Kaufman v. . Rosenshine neutral ny · 1906	1	1985–1985
People v. Shapiro green ny · 1955	1	1985–1985
People v. Glenn green ny · 1981	1	1985–1985

Statutes the citing opinions construe

NY § N.Y. Mental Hygiene Law § 33.13 (3)

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.

Where else courts name it

NJ 25 (1985–2025) CO 22 (1986–2025) AZ 15 (1985–2022) NY 12 (1985–2025) AL 10 (1984–2016) PA 10 (1990–2025) WA 10 (1988–2016) MI 9 (1984–2019) GA 9 (1989–2006) IN 7 (1996–2015) OH 5 (1999–2016) MD 4 (1995–2013) TN 3 (2014–2021) NV 2 (2017–2017) MS 2 (1987–1993)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check

Your account

Appearance