psychologist-client privilege in New York

2008In Baecher v Baecher ( 58 AD2d 821 [1977], supra), the Second Department held: “The defendant’s assertion of the psychologist-client privilege (see CPLR 4507) is without merit.

1996In this regard, the court acknowledges the case of Baecher v Baecher ( 58 AD2d 821 [1977], Iv denied 43 NY2d 645 [1978]) where the appellate court found without discussion or analysis, that a party had waived the right to the psychologist-client privilege by actually contesting custody, thereby putting the party’s mental and emotional well-being into issue.

2008Although, abstractly, the privilege applies in matrimonial proceedings (see Yaron v Yaron, 83 Misc 2d 276 ), in this case the defendant waived his right to the privilege by actively contesting custody, thereby putting his mental and emotional well-being into issue.” In the case at bar, the wife, A.L., argues that the husband, C.K., submitted to the court a letter from this particular therapist which was addressed to the court.

1978One trial court in a custody case has held that any communication which is privileged when made remains privileged forever unless affirmatively waived (see Yaron v Yaron, 83 Misc 2d 276 , supra).

1996It has been said that the privilege created by CPLR 4503 (a) is not absolute and that it exists to aid the orderly administration of justice by ensuring the frank revelation of pertinent information between attorney and client (see, Matter of Priest v Hennessy, 51 NY2d 62 [1980]; Matter of Jacqueline F. v Segal, 47 NY2d 215 [1979]; Beard v Ames, 96 AD2d 119 [1983]).

1996In the case of the communication to a psychologist, the mere commencement of an action in which the mental condition of a party is placed in controversy is not sufficient to automatically permit the implying of a waiver of the psychologist-client privilege just as the commencement of an action in which legal communications or advice are placed in controversy is not sufficient to automatically permit the implying of a waiver of the attorney-client privilege (see, Raphael v Clune, White & Nelson, 146 AD2d 762 [1989]; Jakobleff v Cerrato, Sweeney & Cohn, 97 AD2d 834 [1983]; Allen v West Point-Pep

1996Although unstated, it appears as if the appellate court’s ruling was based upon a finding that confidentiality must yield to disclosure in the face of a countervailing public interest such as the welfare of minor children (see, Ace v State of New York, 146 Misc 2d 954 [1990], affd 207 AD2d 813 [1994]).

1996In the case of the communication to a psychologist, the mere commencement of an action in which the mental condition of a party is placed in controversy is not sufficient to automatically permit the implying of a waiver of the psychologist-client privilege just as the commencement of an action in which legal communications or advice are placed in controversy is not sufficient to automatically permit the implying of a waiver of the attorney-client privilege (see, Raphael v Clune, White & Nelson, 146 AD2d 762 [1989]; Jakobleff v Cerrato, Sweeney & Cohn, 97 AD2d 834 [1983]; Allen v West Point-Pep

1996In the case of the communication to a psychologist, the mere commencement of an action in which the mental condition of a party is placed in controversy is not sufficient to automatically permit the implying of a waiver of the psychologist-client privilege just as the commencement of an action in which legal communications or advice are placed in controversy is not sufficient to automatically permit the implying of a waiver of the attorney-client privilege (see, Raphael v Clune, White & Nelson, 146 AD2d 762 [1989]; Jakobleff v Cerrato, Sweeney & Cohn, 97 AD2d 834 [1983]; Allen v West Point-Pep

1996Although the psychologist-client privilege affords even greater confidentiality than the physician-patient privilege, where as here the client discloses mental or emotional problems during the course of litigation in which they became an issue (and for which he has been treated by a psychologist) and also acknowledges preincident visits to a psychologist but claims such visits are not related to, and have no bearing upon his present emotional and psychological problems, the privilege may be defeated where common notions of fairness clearly compel at least limited disclosure of otherwise confid

1996Inasmuch as the materiality and relevance of the communications to the family counselor cannot be decided in a factual vacuum, the family counselor is to submit the counsel-ling records to the court for an in camera review (see, Arena v Saphier, 201 NJ Super 79, 492 A2d 1020 , supra; see also, State of New Jersey v L.J.P., 270 NJ Super 429, 637 A2d 532 , supra; Ziemann v Burlington County Bridge Commn., 155 FRD 497, supra; State of New Jersey v McBride, 213 NJ Super 255, 517 A2d 152 , supra).

1996In the case of the communication to a psychologist, the mere commencement of an action in which the mental condition of a party is placed in controversy is not sufficient to automatically permit the implying of a waiver of the psychologist-client privilege just as the commencement of an action in which legal communications or advice are placed in controversy is not sufficient to automatically permit the implying of a waiver of the attorney-client privilege (see, Raphael v Clune, White & Nelson, 146 AD2d 762 [1989]; Jakobleff v Cerrato, Sweeney & Cohn, 97 AD2d 834 [1983]; Allen v West Point-Pep

1996Although unstated, it appears as if the appellate court’s ruling was based upon a finding that confidentiality must yield to disclosure in the face of a countervailing public interest such as the welfare of minor children (see, Ace v State of New York, 146 Misc 2d 954 [1990], affd 207 AD2d 813 [1994]).

1996In New Jersey, however, a jurisdiction with a similar statutory psychologist-client privilege one appellate court has ruled that the confidential nature of the relation between a psychologist endeavoring to cure an emotional or mental problem and a client more closely resembled the relation between an attorney and his client than that of a physician, treating an illness or disease and his patient (see, Arena v Saphier, 201 NJ Super 79, 492 A2d 1020 [1985]).

1996Although the psychologist-client privilege affords even greater confidentiality than the physician-patient privilege, where as here the client discloses mental or emotional problems during the course of litigation in which they became an issue (and for which he has been treated by a psychologist) and also acknowledges preincident visits to a psychologist but claims such visits are not related to, and have no bearing upon his present emotional and psychological problems, the privilege may be defeated where common notions of fairness clearly compel at least limited disclosure of otherwise confid

1996It has been said that the privilege created by CPLR 4503 (a) is not absolute and that it exists to aid the orderly administration of justice by ensuring the frank revelation of pertinent information between attorney and client (see, Matter of Priest v Hennessy, 51 NY2d 62 [1980]; Matter of Jacqueline F. v Segal, 47 NY2d 215 [1979]; Beard v Ames, 96 AD2d 119 [1983]).

1996It has been said that the privilege created by CPLR 4503 (a) is not absolute and that it exists to aid the orderly administration of justice by ensuring the frank revelation of pertinent information between attorney and client (see, Matter of Priest v Hennessy, 51 NY2d 62 [1980]; Matter of Jacqueline F. v Segal, 47 NY2d 215 [1979]; Beard v Ames, 96 AD2d 119 [1983]).

1989(The People are advised to take notice of People v De Jesus, 69 NY2d 855 [1981], discussed below.) The court recognizes that CPLR 4507 creates a psychologist-client privilege and CPLR 4508 creates a social worker-client privilege.

1985In a line of cases going back at least to the turn of the century, we have held that a party who testifies in his or her own behalf may not be cross-examined concerning statements to his or her attorney, nor may the attorney be called as a witness to such statements (People v Glenn, 52 NY2d 880 [cross-examination of defendant re discussion with attorney of justification defense, error]; People v Shapiro, 308 NY 453 , supra [cross-examination of defendant re discussion with attorney concerning whereabouts of a possible witness for defendant, error]; Kaufman v Rosenshine, 183 NY 562 , affg 97 Ap

1985In a line of cases going back at least to the turn of the century, we have held that a party who testifies in his or her own behalf may not be cross-examined concerning statements to his or her attorney, nor may the attorney be called as a witness to such statements (People v Glenn, 52 NY2d 880 [cross-examination of defendant re discussion with attorney of justification defense, error]; People v Shapiro, 308 NY 453 , supra [cross-examination of defendant re discussion with attorney concerning whereabouts of a possible witness for defendant, error]; Kaufman v Rosenshine, 183 NY 562 , affg 97 Ap

1985In a line of cases going back at least to the turn of the century, we have held that a party who testifies in his or her own behalf may not be cross-examined concerning statements to his or her attorney, nor may the attorney be called as a witness to such statements (People v Glenn, 52 NY2d 880 [cross-examination of defendant re discussion with attorney of justification defense, error]; People v Shapiro, 308 NY 453 , supra [cross-examination of defendant re discussion with attorney concerning whereabouts of a possible witness for defendant, error]; Kaufman v Rosenshine, 183 NY 562 , affg 97 Ap

1985In a line of cases going back at least to the turn of the century, we have held that a party who testifies in his or her own behalf may not be cross-examined concerning statements to his or her attorney, nor may the attorney be called as a witness to such statements (People v Glenn, 52 NY2d 880 [cross-examination of defendant re discussion with attorney of justification defense, error]; People v Shapiro, 308 NY 453 , supra [cross-examination of defendant re discussion with attorney concerning whereabouts of a possible witness for defendant, error]; Kaufman v Rosenshine, 183 NY 562 , affg 97 Ap

1985In a line of cases going back at least to the turn of the century, we have held that a party who testifies in his or her own behalf may not be cross-examined concerning statements to his or her attorney, nor may the attorney be called as a witness to such statements (People v Glenn, 52 NY2d 880 [cross-examination of defendant re discussion with attorney of justification defense, error]; People v Shapiro, 308 NY 453 , supra [cross-examination of defendant re discussion with attorney concerning whereabouts of a possible witness for defendant, error]; Kaufman v Rosenshine, 183 NY 562 , affg 97 Ap

1984In the context of a criminal proceeding, such waiver generally occurs when the defendant propounds a defense of insanity (see People v Edney, 39 NY2d 620 ; People v AlKanani, 33 NY2d 260, 264 , cert den 417 US 916 ).

1984In the context of a criminal proceeding, such waiver generally occurs when the defendant propounds a defense of insanity (see People v Edney, 39 NY2d 620 ; People v AlKanani, 33 NY2d 260, 264 , cert den 417 US 916 ).

1984In the context of a criminal proceeding, such waiver generally occurs when the defendant propounds a defense of insanity (see People v Edney, 39 NY2d 620 ; People v AlKanani, 33 NY2d 260, 264 , cert den 417 US 916 ).

1980(Matter of Windsor Park Nursing Home v Hynes, 42 NY2d 243 .) Some of the records sought by the respondent are not covered by the psychologist-client privilege.

1978Corp., 44 AD2d 482, 484 , affd 38 NY2d 234 .) The Second Department has ruled that the psychologist-client privilege is automatically waived by a party who actively contests custody (Baecher v Baecher, 58 AD2d 821 ).

1978Corp., 44 AD2d 482, 484 , affd 38 NY2d 234 .) The Second Department has ruled that the psychologist-client privilege is automatically waived by a party who actively contests custody (Baecher v Baecher, 58 AD2d 821 ).