From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Scott v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 5, 1992
186 A.D.2d 571 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Summary

approving $25 flat fee and $2 per-page fee

Summary of this case from Ruzhinskaya v. Healthport Techs., LLC

Opinion

October 5, 1992

Appeal from the Court of Claims (Blinder, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In conjunction with his application for leave to serve a late claim pursuant to Court of Claims Act § 10 (6), the claimant's counsel alleged that the State had not responded to several of his requests for the decedent's hospital records which made it "difficult for any kind of determination with regard to the merits of an action". However, after several adjournments, the State did advise the claimant by letter dated September 15, 1989, that the pertinent records could be copied at a charge of $2 per page plus a $25 processing fee. These charges were "reasonable" under Public Health Law former § 17 (see, Matter of Hernandez v Lutheran Med. Ctr., 104 A.D.2d 368; Matter of Scipione v Long Is. Jewish-Hillside Med. Ctr., 118 Misc.2d 324, 325; Matter of Kaplan v North Shore Univ. Hosp., 117 Misc.2d 734, 735). Since the claimant failed to respond to the State's letter dated September 15, 1989, the Court of Claims properly treated the application as abandoned. Mangano, P.J., Harwood, Miller and Santucci, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Matter of Scott v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 5, 1992
186 A.D.2d 571 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

approving $25 flat fee and $2 per-page fee

Summary of this case from Ruzhinskaya v. Healthport Techs., LLC
Case details for

Matter of Scott v. State

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of LEONARD SCOTT, Appellant, v. STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Oct 5, 1992

Citations

186 A.D.2d 571 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Citing Cases

Ruzhinskaya v. Healthport Techs., LLC

Before this amendment, courts applying the earlier version of § 18 had upheld substantially higher charges as…

Davenport v. County of Nassau

The respondents are not "qualified person[s]" as defined in Public Health Law § 18 (1) (g). Therefore, the…