In Rosen v. MHM Realty LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 07549 (App. Div. 1st Div. Nov. 8, 2018), the Appellate Division unanimously affirmed the lower court’s order denying plaintiff’s motion for a protective order and directed plaintiff to give defendants an unlimited authorization (for a specified period) for mental health records for treatment in connection with injuries he sustained.
According to the court:
Plaintiff put his mental condition in issue by seeking to recover damages for emotional distress as a result of the actions alleged in the complaint (CPLR 3101[a]; Cynthia B. v New Rochelle Hosp. Med. Ctr., 60 NY2d 452, 456-57 ; Budano v Gurdon, 97 AD3d 497 [1st Dept 2012]). He did not specify how he or any third party would be subject to “unreasonable annoyance, expense, embarrassment, disadvantage or other prejudice” as a result of the disclosure of the mental health treatment records at issue (CPLR 3103[a]). Nor did plaintiff otherwise establish that disclosure would be detrimental to himself or a third party (cf. Cynthia B. at 461-462). In any event, it is noted that plaintiff previously stipulated to unlimited disclosure of his mental health treatment records[.]