New York Consolidated Laws
N.Y. Public Health Law § 3373 (2026)
Confidential communications
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
NY-LEGnysenate.gov
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
§ 3373. Confidential communications. For the purposes of duties arising out of this article, no communication made to a practitioner shall be deemed confidential within the meaning of the civil practice law and rules relating to confidential communications between such practitioner and patient.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10
cases, 1986–2015 · leading case: Dillenbeck v. Hess, 536 N.E.2d 1126 (N.Y. 1989).
Dillenbeck v. Hess, 536 N.E.2d 1126 (N.Y. 1989). “And while certain exceptions to the privilege have been recognized by the Legislature and the courts (see, CPLR 4504 [b] [dentist required to disclose information for purpose of identification and where patient under age of 16 has been the victim of a crime]; Public Health Law §…”
People v. Sinski, 669 N.E.2d 809 (N.Y. 1996). “The courts below held that the information was not privileged because of the exception contained in Public Health Law § 3373. We conclude that statute does not render the evidence admissible over defendant’s objection and therefore reverse and order a new trial.”
Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum v. Kuriansky, 505 N.E.2d 925 (N.Y. 1987). “Our decision was based upon the public’s strong interest in discovering and punishing such frauds, upon the relationship between the State and Federal Governments in Medicaid matters, and upon our determination that the statutory record-keeping requirements of the Federal…”
The People v. David Rivera, 33 N.E.3d 465 (N.Y. 2015). “09 [d] [permitting a court evaluator in guardianship proceedings to apply for permission to inspect medical and psychiatric records of the alleged incapacitated persons, and allowing the court to order such disclosure notwithstanding the physician-patient privilege]; Public…”
People v. Saaratu, 143 Misc. 2d 1075 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1989). “Lydia Solomon, a pathologist, who took "custody of the controlled substance found in the defendant’s stomach.”
People v. Figueroa, 173 A.D.2d 156 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991). “) Consequently, when illicit drugs are recovered during surgery performed on the defendant who has swallowed condoms containing drugs to smuggle them into this jurisdiction, the physician-patient privilege of CPLR 4504 does not apply since it is expressly superceded by Public…”
People v. Fonseca, 134 Misc. 2d 1078 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1987). “the public’s strong interest in discovering and punishing such frauds, upon the relationship between the State and Federal Governments in Medicaid matters, and upon our determination that the statutory record-keeping requirements of the Federal Government superseded the State’s…”
People v. Gomez, 147 Misc. 2d 704 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1990). “The court’s decision in Saaratu (supra), rendered exactly two years after Fonseca (supra), reached an opposite conclusion regarding the applicability of Public Health Law § 3373 to article 220 of the Penal Law.”
In re an Investigation by the New York State Comm'n, 134 Misc. 2d 218 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1986). “Although the privilege serves an important social function, in certain instances, the Legislature has abrogated this privilege to effectuate some other public policy such as the detection and prevention of child abuse (Family Ct Act § 1046 [a] [vii]) or the treatment of narcotic…”
People v. Sinski, 220 A.D.2d 703 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995). “The trial court properly denied the motion since the privilege is abrogated "[f|or the purposes of duties arising out of [article 33 of the Public Health Law]” (Public Health Law § 3373; see, People v Figueroa, 173 AD2d 156 ).”
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.