New York Consolidated Laws

N.Y. Public Health Law § 10 (2026)

Legal presumptions; evidence

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NY-LEGnysenate.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

§ 10. Legal presumptions; evidence.  1. The actions, proceedings,
authority, and orders of the department in enforcing the provisions of
the public health law and the sanitary code applying them to specific
cases shall at all times be regarded as in their nature judicial, and
shall be treated as prima facie just and legal.
  2. The written reports of state and local health officers, inspectors,
investigators, nurses and other representatives of state and local
health officers on questions of fact pertaining to, concerning or
arising under and in connection with complaints, alleged violations,
investigations, proceedings, actions, authority and orders, related to
the enforcement of this chapter, the sanitary code or any local health
regulation shall be presumptive evidence of the facts so stated therein,
and shall be received as such in all courts and places. The persons
making such reports shall be exempt from personal liability for the
statements therein made, if they have acted in good faith.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 18 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1989–2024 · leading case: Janice Mazella v. William Beals, M.D., 57 N.E.3d 1083 (NY 2016).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Janice Mazella v. William Beals, M.D., 57 N.E.3d 1083 (NY 2016). “The record establishes that the consent order was probative of neither defendant’s negligence nor the question of proximate cause.”

Navas v. New York Hosp. Med. Ctr. of Queens, 2020 NY Slip Op 1069 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020). “A report from the New York State Department of Health, finding that the decedent was given a dose of Dilaudid higher than her usual dosage, is prima facie proof of the facts stated ( see Public Health Law § 10; Maldonado v Cotter , 256 AD2d 1073 ; see also Colao v St.”

Maldonado v. Cotter, 256 A.D.2d 1073 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998). · cites it 2× “Pursuant to Public Health Law § 10 (2), the written reports of State health inspectors on questions of fact related to the enforcement of the Public Health Law “shall be presumptive evidence of the facts so stated therein, and shall be received as such in all courts and places”…”

Colao v. St. Vincent's Med. Ctr., 65 A.D.3d 660 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009). “Kuczabski’s contentions, the New York State Department of Health “Statement of Deficiencies” submitted by the plaintiff is admissible evidence under Public Health Law § 10 (2) (see Maldonado v Cotter, 256 AD2d 1073 [1998]).”

Cramer v. Benedictine Hosp., 301 A.D.2d 924 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003). “4 Initially, with regard to plaintiffs argument that the DOH report should have been admitted in its entirety, we note that, under the circumstances herein, the opinions and conclusions of DOH stated in the report are inadmissible (see Public Health Law § 10 [2]; Maldonado v…”

People v. Highgate LTC Mgmt., LLC, 69 A.D.3d 185 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009). “In any event, as County Court concluded, the statements of deficiency are Department of Health reports on questions of fact pertaining to health law violations and, thus, are “presumptive evidence of the facts so *190 stated therein, and shall be received as such in all courts”…”

Maraziti v. Weber, 185 Misc. 2d 624 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2000). · cites it 2× “, Stevenson v Goomar, 148 AD2d 217 [3d Dept 1989]) is based on Public Health Law § 10 which allows for the admission of written reports of OPMC on questions of fact pertaining to complaints or investigations.”

Smith v. Delago, 2 A.D.3d 1259 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003). “lso processes grievances (Public Health Law § 2805-j [1] [d], [e]) and reports incidents of potential malpractice (see Public Health Law § 2805-1 [2] [a]); a hospital is required to cooperate with all DOH investigations or inquiries (see Public Health Law § 2803 [1] [d] [i];…”

Gonzalez v. Arya, 140 A.D.3d 925 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016). “Contrary to the Arya defendants’ contention, the Supreme Court properly relied upon the NYCDOH report and findings in determining the cross motion (see Public Health Law § 10 [2]; Colao v St. Vincent’s Med.”

Sorrentino v. Axelrod, 150 A.D.2d 700 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989). “Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the report of the respondent’s investigator, which included, among other things, an admission by the petitioner that he notarized a blank document and gave it to a colleague, was properly admitted into evidence at the hearing as…”

Cramer v. Benedictine Hosp., 190 Misc. 2d 191 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2002). · cites it 3× “Plaintiff contends that the entire report is admissible pursuant to Public Health Law § 10 (2) and maintains that the jury should be charged that the report constitutes presumptive proof of the factual findings contained therein.”

J.P. v. Chassin, 189 A.D.2d 137 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993). “The Legislature retained several provisions protecting confidentiality (see, Public Health Law § 230 [9], [11] [g] [vi]), enacted a further provision protecting confidentiality (see, Public Health Law § 10 [a] [v]) and rejected DOH’s proposal for a provision mandating open…”

Show all 18 citing cases →

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.