From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Robinson v. State

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Feb 8, 2013
103 A.D.3d 1247 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)

Opinion

2013-02-8

Linda L. ROBINSON, Individually and as Special Education Teacher, Orleans Men's Correctional Facility, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. STATE of New York, et al., Defendants, and Patricia Townsend, Individually and as Academic Education Supervisor, Orleans Men's Correctional Facility, Defendant–Respondent.

Emmelyn Logan–Baldwin, Rochester, for Plaintiff–Appellant. Christina A. Agola, PLLC, Rochester (Steven E. Laprade of Counsel), for Defendant–Respondent.



Emmelyn Logan–Baldwin, Rochester, for Plaintiff–Appellant. Christina A. Agola, PLLC, Rochester (Steven E. Laprade of Counsel), for Defendant–Respondent.
Present: SMITH, J.P., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, WHALEN, and MARTOCHE, JJ.

MEMORANDUM:

Plaintiff commenced this action alleging, inter alia, that, during the course of her employment as a teacher at defendant Orleans Men's Correctional Facility, she was subjected to unlawful discrimination based upon sex, age and disability, and to retaliation for complaining about such discrimination. Patricia Townsend (defendant) was plaintiff's supervisor at the correctional facility. We conclude that Supreme Court properly denied plaintiff's motion seeking, inter alia, to compel production of defendant's medical records. Even assuming, arguendo, that defendant waived the physician-patient privilege with respect to those records by disclosing them in an action commenced by defendant in federal court ( see Scinta v. Van Coevering, 284 A.D.2d 1000, 1001, 726 N.Y.S.2d 520), we conclude that plaintiff failed to meet her initial burden of making an evidentiary showing that defendant's medical condition is “in controversy” in this action (CPLR 3121[a]; see Dillenbeck v. Hess, 73 N.Y.2d 278, 287–288, 539 N.Y.S.2d 707, 536 N.E.2d 1126;Scinta, 284 A.D.2d at 1001, 726 N.Y.S.2d 520). The fact that defendant affirmatively placed her medical condition in controversy in the related action she commenced in federal court does not relieve plaintiff of her initial burden herein.

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.


Summaries of

Robinson v. State

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Feb 8, 2013
103 A.D.3d 1247 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)
Case details for

Robinson v. State

Case Details

Full title:Linda L. ROBINSON, Individually and as Special Education Teacher, Orleans…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.

Date published: Feb 8, 2013

Citations

103 A.D.3d 1247 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)
960 N.Y.S.2d 283
2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 853

Citing Cases

Stern v. Golub Corp.

We conclude that plaintiff's demands for reports of every motorized shopping cart accident in every Price…

Carr-Hoagland v. Patterson

In appeal No. 1, we reject plaintiffs' contention that Supreme Court abused its discretion in denying that…