6 New York opinions name it 3 courts 1974–2016 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Koump v. Smithgreen2 sentences2007In 1969, the Court of Appeals held that, “by bringing or defending a personal injury action in which mental or physical condition is affirmatively put in issue, a party waives the privilege” (Koump, 25 NY2d at 294 ). 1985In 1969, the Court of Appeals unequivocally established that when a plaintiff brings a personal injury action in which his or her physical or mental condition is placed in issue, “a party waives the privilege.” (Koump v Smith, 25 NY2d 287, 294 [1969].) Under Koump , the plaintiff herein waived the privilege by commencing the original lawsuit since that lawsuit put into issue her physical and mental condition. | 1 | 4 |
People v. Osoriogreen2 sentences2016A party waives a privilege which would otherwise attach to an attorney-client communication if that specific communication was voluntarily shared with a third-party ( see People v Osorio , 75 NY2d at 84; People v Harris , 57 NY2d 335, 343 [1982]; Sieger , 60 AD3d at 662). 2016A party waives a privilege which would otherwise attach to an attorney-client communication if that specific communication was voluntarily shared with a third-party ( see People v Osorio , 75 NY2d at 84 ; People v Harris , 57 NY2d 335, 343 [1982]; Sieger , 60 AD3d at 662 ). | 1 | 1 |
Sieger v. Zakgreen2 sentences2016A party waives a privilege which would otherwise attach to an attorney-client communication if that specific communication was voluntarily shared with a third-party ( see People v Osorio , 75 NY2d at 84; People v Harris , 57 NY2d 335, 343 [1982]; Sieger , 60 AD3d at 662). 2016A party waives a privilege which would otherwise attach to an attorney-client communication if that specific communication was voluntarily shared with a third-party ( see People v Osorio , 75 NY2d at 84 ; People v Harris , 57 NY2d 335, 343 [1982]; Sieger , 60 AD3d at 662 ). | 1 | 1 |
Kraus v. Brandstettergreen2 sentences2016The fundamental questions in assessing whether the attorney-client privilege is waived are whether the client intended to retain the confidentiality of the privileged materials and whether the client took reasonable steps to prevent disclosure" ( Kraus v Brandstetter , 185 AD2d 300, 301 [2d Dept 1992] [reasonable expectation the information in the report of the hospital's law committee would remain confidential due to the common interest of each recipient in the hospital's investigation, where all recipients were management employees of the hospital]). 2016The fundamental questions in assessing whether the attorney-client privilege is waived are whether the client intended to retain the confidentiality of the privileged materials and whether the client took reasonable steps to prevent disclosure" ( Kraus v Brandstetter , 185 AD2d 300, 301 [2d Dept 1992] [reasonable expectation the information in the report of the hospital's law committee would remain confidential due to the common interest of each recipient in the hospital's investigation, where all recipients were management employees of the hospital]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Harrisgreen2 sentences2016A party waives a privilege which would otherwise attach to an attorney-client communication if that specific communication was voluntarily shared with a third-party ( see People v Osorio , 75 NY2d at 84; People v Harris , 57 NY2d 335, 343 [1982]; Sieger , 60 AD3d at 662). 2016A party waives a privilege which would otherwise attach to an attorney-client communication if that specific communication was voluntarily shared with a third-party ( see People v Osorio , 75 NY2d at 84 ; People v Harris , 57 NY2d 335, 343 [1982]; Sieger , 60 AD3d at 662 ). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Claim of Beeler v. Hildan Crown Container Corp.
neutral
1 sentence1979Whatever the ultimate determination of the triers of fact may be in the present case and notwithstanding the presumption against suicide which they will have to consider in reaching their determination, we conclude that it is a matter of common knowledge which we can judicially notice (Richardson, op. tit., § 44) that many apparently accidental deaths are in fact suicides and that a wrongful death complaint predicated upon an alleged accidental fall from a 36th story window is sufficiently equivocal in that respect to put in issue, by plaintiffs affirmative act in bringing the action, decedent | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Turner v. Town of Amherst
neutral
1 sentence1974The pre fatory language fully explains the ruling, the court holding (p. 294), “ We hold therefore that by bringing or defending a personal injury action in which mental or physical condition is affirmatively put in issue, a party waives the privilege.” Turner {supra) similarly involves an action for personal injuries and, in part, holds contrary to the interpretation advanced by the defendants. | 1 | 1974–1974 |
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.