Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/26/2020 06:45 PM INDEX NO. 154880/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 32 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/26/2020
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
---------------------------------------------------------------------X
JANET VEGA, as mother and natural guardian of F.R., an Index No.: 154880/2018
infant, and JANET VEGA, Individually, Date Filed: 5/23/2018
Plaintiff(s),
AFFIRMATION IN
-against- SUPPORT
THE CITY OF NEW YORK, THE NEW YORK CITY
ADMINSTRATION FOR CHILDREN'S SERVICES,
SCO FAMILY OF SERVICES and JEWISH CHILD
CARE ASSOCIATION OF NEW YORK,
Defendant(s).
---------------------------------------------------------------------X
ROBERT S. DELMOND, an attorney admitted to practice law in the Courts of
the State of New York, hereby affirms the following statements under penalties of perjury
pursuant to CPLR § 2106:
1. I am a Member of the law firm of CONWAY, FARRELL, CURTIN &
KELLY, P.C., attorneys for the defendants, THE CITY OF NEW YORK,THE NEW YORK
CITY ADMINSTRATION FOR CHILDREN'S SERVICES and SCO FAMILY OF
SERVICES, in the captioned case, and I am fully familiar with the facts and circumstances of
this action.
2. I respectfully submit this Affirmation in Support of the instant motion
which seeks a Protective Order pursuant to CPLR § 3103(a) with regard to the disclosure of
confidential foster care case records and quality assurance records, including incident reports,
and for such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.
3. Annexed for the Court’s reference are the following Exhibits:
Exhibit A: Summons and Complaint, City’s Answer, SCO’s Answer,
JCCA’s Answer.
1
1 of 8
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/26/2020 06:45 PM INDEX NO. 154880/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 32 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/26/2020
Exhibit B: Amended Complaint, Notice of Substitution, SCO, City
and JCCA’s Answers to Amended Complaint.
Exhibit C: Plaintiff’s Bills of Particular and Supplemental Bills of
Particular.
Exhibit D: Plaintiff’s Notice for Discovery and Inspection dated
October 26, 2018.
Exhibit E: Affirmation of Good Faith
FACTUAL/PROCEDURAL HISTORY
4. The plaintiff, Janet Vega, brings this action for personal injury on behalf of
her infant son F.R. F.R. was voluntarily placed in foster care by with the CITY OF NEW YORK
because his mother could not manage his behavioral issues. The CITY placed F.R. with the co-
defendant, JCCA, a contract foster care agency. JCCA sought placement for F.R. in a residential
treatment facility. F.R. was placed with SCO Family of Services. SCO Family of Services
operates a residential treatment facility for youth with behavioral issues. SCO also operates the
Theresa Paplin School which educates children with behavioral issues. The plaintiff has alleged
that F.R. was sexually and physically abused, on several occasions, by other children while in
school and at the residential treatment facility.
5. The plaintiff has served a discovery demand dated October 23, 2018 which
seeks the production of confidential records, privileged quality assurance records and confidential
records of non-parties among other things.
5. These defendants object to the production of documents pertaining to
plaintiff on the ground that these records are deemed confidential pursuant to Social Services Law
§372 and are exempt from disclosure without order of the court.
6. Social Services Law §372(2) requires that all agencies which receive,
accept, or admit any child must keep a record detailing certain specific facts about the child’s life
and placement activity enumerated in §372(1) and (2). Social Services Law §372(4) provides, in
2
2 of 8
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/26/2020 06:45 PM INDEX NO. 154880/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 32 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/26/2020
part, that these records “shall be deemed confidential and shall be safeguarded from coming to
the knowledge of and from inspection or examination by any person other than one
authorized...after a notice to all interested persons and a hearing, to receive such knowledge or to
make such inspection or examination." (emphasis added) 1 Section 372(6) provides, in part, that
“provisions of this section as to records and reports to the department shall apply also to the
placing out, adoption or boarding out of a child.”
7. Since defendants compiled records pertaining to plaintiff’s placement and
care in accordance with §372, defendants’ records are confidential, and defendants are bound by
the requirements of the statute whereby such documents cannot be disclosed without a court
order. Such disclosure may be had only upon a proper showing of necessity coupled with an in-
camera inspection. In the Matter of Louis F., 42 N.Y.2d 260, 265 (1977); Three Village Central
Sch. Dist. of Brookhaven and Smithtown v. Brentwood Union Free Sch. Dist., 167 A.D.2d 385,
386 (2nd Dept. 1990). This Court must then determine the materiality and relevance of the
records and whether the need for the evidence outweighs the need for confidentiality. Quillen v.
State of N.Y., 191 A.D.2d 31, 33-34 (3rd Dept. 1993); In re Carla L., 45 A.D.2d 375, 382 (1st
Dept. 1974). Disclosure should be limited to what is shown to be necessary and should be
accompanied by adequate safeguards to limit as much as possible the unnecessary loss of
confidentiality. In re Carla L., 45 A.D.2d at 382.
8. Moreover, defendants object to the production of any of the requested
records demanded by plaintiffs which contain the names and information of non-parties upon
the grounds that the notice requirements of Social Services Law §372 have not been met, and
1 The confidentiality of these records is in no way affected by §372(3) which merely clarifies the procedures
to follow to obtain such confidential records providing that such records are "subject to the provisions of
Article 31 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules."
3
3 of 8
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/26/2020 06:45 PM INDEX NO. 154880/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 32 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/26/2020
therefore, the production of these records would be an unwarranted invasion of these persons’
privacy since they are not parties to the underlying litigation. Social Services Law §372(4)
provides, in part, that these records “shall be deemed confidential and shall be safeguarded from
coming to the knowledge of and from inspection or examination by any person other than one
authorized...after a notice to all interested persons and a hearing, to receive such knowledge or to
make such inspection or examination” (emphasis added).
9. Should the Court deny the protective order and direct production of the
confidential case records, it is respectfully requested that this Court undertake an in-camera
review of plaintiffs’ confidential records in defendants’ possession sought in plaintiffs’ discovery
demands in order to determine which records bear on plaintiffs’ claims and which do not.
Wheeler v. Commissioner of Social Services for the City of New York, 233 A.D.2d 4 (2nd Dept.
1997). Furthermore, if this Court, upon review, concludes that some or all the records should be
produced, defendants request that prior to such production, all names, addresses and other
identifying information of all non-parties (including and especially children) be redacted. Id.
Such redaction will ensure the privacy rights of those not represented herein.
10. In Wheeler v. Commissioner of Social Services for the City of New York, 233
A.D.2d 4 (2nd Dept. 1997), the Court delineated the following procedure for an in-camera
inspection:
a. Based upon the plaintiff's motion, and the delivery of her records to
the court for in camera inspection, the court should mark the records for identification, so
that they may be subject to further review, if that is called for.
b. The court, in the presence of both sides, should identify the records,
by date, and where possible, by the name of the person who made the record. In most
4
4 of 8
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/26/2020 06:45 PM INDEX NO. 154880/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 32 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/26/2020
instances it should be possible to do this without divulging the content of the particular
record or breaching any confidentiality.
c. When the records are so marked, [the record-keeping party] may
seek a protective order pursuant to CPLR 3103 (see, Cynthia B. v. New Rochelle Hosp.
Med. Center, 60 N.Y.2d 452, 462 (1983); Matter of Carla L., 45 A.D.2d 375, 382 (1st
Dept. 1974) by identifying those records, or portions of the records that it seeks to have
withheld, or redacted, and setting forth its reasons.
d. The court should clearly specify the grounds for its denial or
approval of disclosure with respect to each document or category of documents. In most
instances, the court should be able to make these determinations unaided, but we note that
it does have the authority to appoint a referee (see, Cynthia B. v. New Rochelle Hosp.
Med. Center, supra, at 461, 470 N.Y.S.2d 122, 458 N.E.2d 363) or a law guardian.””
11. The Wheeler court continued: “Although the verbatim content of any record
should not be revealed prematurely, the court, to the extent feasible, should identify, in general
terms, any record that Graham Windham seeks to have withheld or redacted by way of protective
order. This will give the plaintiff an intelligent basis upon which to argue for disclosure.” Id. at
14.
12. Defendants therefore argue that the Court shall only order disclosure of
those of defendants’ records of plaintiffs which are relevant to plaintiff’s claims and necessary
for plaintiff to prove his claims.
13. Furthermore, the plaintiff also seeks information that relates to a quality
assurance function and /or incident reports prepared pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law § 29.29.
Such reports are exempt from disclosure pursuant to Education Law § 6527(3) and Mental
Hygiene Law § 29.29
5
5 of 8
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/26/2020 06:45 PM INDEX NO. 154880/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 32 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/26/2020
14. The New York State Education Law § 6527 bars disclosure of the
aforementioned records sought by the plaintiff. Education Law § 6527 states in pertinent part as
follows:
“Neither the proceedings nor the records relating to performance of
a medical or quality assurance review function or participation in a
medical and dental malpractice prevention program nor any report
required by the Department of Health pursuant to section twenty-
eight hundred five-l of the Public Health Law described herein,
including the investigation of an incident reported pursuant to
section 29.29 of the mental hygiene law, shall be subject to
disclosure under article thirty-one of the civil practice law and rules”
15. Education Law § 6527 is very specific in stating that “neither proceedings
nor records relating to the performance of a medical or quality assurance review are discoverable.
This section also specifically addresses records required to be maintained under Mental Hygiene
Law § 29.29. Specifically, § 29.29 requires that defendant, SCO FAMILY OF SERVICES,
maintain records for each patient in its care. The purpose of this statute, among other things, is
to establish standards for the protection of persons in residential care from abuse and
maltreatment. These statutes, when read together, bar the discovery of any records which are
maintained pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law § 29.29. Education Law specifically bars
discovery of those documents which are self-review or quality assurance in nature. It also
specifically bars disclosure of incident reports.
16. The purpose of Education Law § 6527 is to promote quality of care through
self-review without fear of legal reprisal. SCO FAMILY OF SERVICES relies on the Court of
Appeals case Katherine F. v. State of New York, 94 NY2d 200, 702 NYS2d 231 (1999). In
Katherine, the plaintiff sought disclosure of incident reports for a personal injury action in which
the infant plaintiff was allegedly sexually assaulted by an employee in a facility where the infant
was a patient. The Court of Appeals upheld the Appellate Division, which barred disclosure, and
6
6 of 8
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/26/2020 06:45 PM INDEX NO. 154880/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 32 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/26/2020
concluded that Education Law § 6527 and Mental Hygiene Law § 29.29, when read together, bar
disclosure of the psychiatric hospital’s incident reports.
17. Furthermore, the Court held that the language of Education Law § 6527(3)
is unequivocal. It exempts three categories of documents from disclosure. The records which
are exempt are those relating to medical review and quality assurance functions; records reflecting
”participation in a medical malpractice prevention program;” and reports required by the
Department of Health pursuant to Public Health Law 2805-1 including incident reports
prepared pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law § 29.29. Katherine at, 204. (emphasis added) In
addition, the Court held that the investigation into the incident in Katherine reflected a quality
assurance review function which is supported by procedures outlined in Mental Hygiene
Law § 29.29 and, therefore, barred from disclosure under Education Law § 6572. (emphasis
added) Katherine at, 205. See also, Wilson-Gunther ex rel. Wilson v. Crouse Health System,
Inc., 32 Misc. 3d 435, 925 N.Y.S. 2d 319(2011), Fray v. Fulton Commons Care Center, Inc., 51
A.D.3d 968, 860 N.Y.S. 2d 543 (2 Dept 2008); LaPierre v. Jewish Bd. Of Family and Children’s
Services, Inc. 47 A.D. 3d 896, 850 N.Y.S. 2d 595 (2 Dept. 2008); Finnegan v. State, 179 Misc.2d
694,686 N.Y.S. 589 (1999). In Finnegan, the Court specifically addressed the privilege of
incident reports made by employees at a State mental health facility in connection with a severely
retarded patient finding they were part of a procedure intended to reduce patient and employee
injuries and were obtained and or maintained pursuant to the review procedure and were
privileged from discovery under the Education Law.
18. In closing, it is requested that this Court keep in mind the sensitive nature
of the documents that have been requested and the public policies supporting the confidentiality
of these records upon making its decision herein. If this Court, upon review, concludes that it is
7
7 of 8
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/26/2020 06:45 PM INDEX NO. 154880/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 32 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/26/2020
necessary for some or all of the records to be produced, defendants request that prior to such
production, all names, addresses and other identifying information of all non-parties (including
and especially children) be redacted. Wheeler at Id. Such redaction will ensure the privacy rights
of those not represented herein. Defendants also request that the documents be used solely for
the purpose of this litigation and that no party disclose the contents of such documents to anyone
not necessarily involved in the prosecution or defense of this action.
WHEREFORE, THE CITY OF NEW YORK, THE CITY OF NEW YORK
ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN’S SERVICES and SCO FAMILY OF SERVICES,
respectfully request that this Court grant this motion seeking a protective order in its entirety, or
in the alternative, review the subject records in camera to determine relevancy, and upon a finding
that any and/or all of same are discoverable, Order their production upon the redaction of all other
identifying information of all non-parties, and such other and further relief as this Court may
deem just and proper.
Dated: New York, New York
May 26, 2020
___________________________
ROBERT S. DELMOND
8
8 of 8
Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/26/2020 06:45 PM INDEX NO. 154880/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 32 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/26/2020 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------------------------------X JANET VEGA, as mother and natural guardian of F.R., an Index No.: 154880/2018 infant, and JANET VEGA, Individually, Date Filed: 5/23/2018 Plaintiff(s), AFFIRMATION IN -against- SUPPORT THE CITY OF NEW YORK, THE NEW YORK CITY ADMINSTRATION FOR CHILDREN'S SERVICES, SCO FAMILY OF SERVICES and JEWISH CHILD CARE ASSOCIATION OF NEW YORK, Defendant(s). ---------------------------------------------------------------------X ROBERT S. DELMOND, an attorney admitted to practice law in the Courts of the State of New York, hereby affirms the following statements under penalties of perjury pursuant to CPLR § 2106: 1. I am a Member of the law firm of CONWAY, FARRELL, CURTIN & KELLY, P.C., attorneys for the defendants, THE CITY OF NEW YORK,THE NEW YORK CITY ADMINSTRATION FOR CHILDREN'S SERVICES and SCO FAMILY OF SERVICES, in the captioned case, and I am fully familiar with the facts and circumstances of this action. 2. I respectfully submit this Affirmation in Support of the instant motion which seeks a Protective Order pursuant to CPLR § 3103(a) with regard to the disclosure of confidential foster care case records and quality assurance records, including incident reports, and for such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper. 3. Annexed for the Court’s reference are the following Exhibits: Exhibit A: Summons and Complaint, City’s Answer, SCO’s Answer, JCCA’s Answer. 1 1 of 8 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/26/2020 06:45 PM INDEX NO. 154880/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 32 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/26/2020 Exhibit B: Amended Complaint, Notice of Substitution, SCO, City and JCCA’s Answers to Amended Complaint. Exhibit C: Plaintiff’s Bills of Particular and Supplemental Bills of Particular. Exhibit D: Plaintiff’s Notice for Discovery and Inspection dated October 26, 2018. Exhibit E: Affirmation of Good Faith FACTUAL/PROCEDURAL HISTORY 4. The plaintiff, Janet Vega, brings this action for personal injury on behalf of her infant son F.R. F.R. was voluntarily placed in foster care by with the CITY OF NEW YORK because his mother could not manage his behavioral issues. The CITY placed F.R. with the co- defendant, JCCA, a contract foster care agency. JCCA sought placement for F.R. in a residential treatment facility. F.R. was placed with SCO Family of Services. SCO Family of Services operates a residential treatment facility for youth with behavioral issues. SCO also operates the Theresa Paplin School which educates children with behavioral issues. The plaintiff has alleged that F.R. was sexually and physically abused, on several occasions, by other children while in school and at the residential treatment facility. 5. The plaintiff has served a discovery demand dated October 23, 2018 which seeks the production of confidential records, privileged quality assurance records and confidential records of non-parties among other things. 5. These defendants object to the production of documents pertaining to plaintiff on the ground that these records are deemed confidential pursuant to Social Services Law §372 and are exempt from disclosure without order of the court. 6. Social Services Law §372(2) requires that all agencies which receive, accept, or admit any child must keep a record detailing certain specific facts about the child’s life and placement activity enumerated in §372(1) and (2). Social Services Law §372(4) provides, in 2 2 of 8 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/26/2020 06:45 PM INDEX NO. 154880/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 32 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/26/2020 part, that these records “shall be deemed confidential and shall be safeguarded from coming to the knowledge of and from inspection or examination by any person other than one authorized...after a notice to all interested persons and a hearing, to receive such knowledge or to make such inspection or examination." (emphasis added) 1 Section 372(6) provides, in part, that “provisions of this section as to records and reports to the department shall apply also to the placing out, adoption or boarding out of a child.” 7. Since defendants compiled records pertaining to plaintiff’s placement and care in accordance with §372, defendants’ records are confidential, and defendants are bound by the requirements of the statute whereby such documents cannot be disclosed without a court order. Such disclosure may be had only upon a proper showing of necessity coupled with an in- camera inspection. In the Matter of Louis F., 42 N.Y.2d 260, 265 (1977); Three Village Central Sch. Dist. of Brookhaven and Smithtown v. Brentwood Union Free Sch. Dist., 167 A.D.2d 385, 386 (2nd Dept. 1990). This Court must then determine the materiality and relevance of the records and whether the need for the evidence outweighs the need for confidentiality. Quillen v. State of N.Y., 191 A.D.2d 31, 33-34 (3rd Dept. 1993); In re Carla L., 45 A.D.2d 375, 382 (1st Dept. 1974). Disclosure should be limited to what is shown to be necessary and should be accompanied by adequate safeguards to limit as much as possible the unnecessary loss of confidentiality. In re Carla L., 45 A.D.2d at 382. 8. Moreover, defendants object to the production of any of the requested records demanded by plaintiffs which contain the names and information of non-parties upon the grounds that the notice requirements of Social Services Law §372 have not been met, and 1 The confidentiality of these records is in no way affected by §372(3) which merely clarifies the procedures to follow to obtain such confidential records providing that such records are "subject to the provisions of Article 31 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules." 3 3 of 8 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/26/2020 06:45 PM INDEX NO. 154880/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 32 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/26/2020 therefore, the production of these records would be an unwarranted invasion of these persons’ privacy since they are not parties to the underlying litigation. Social Services Law §372(4) provides, in part, that these records “shall be deemed confidential and shall be safeguarded from coming to the knowledge of and from inspection or examination by any person other than one authorized...after a notice to all interested persons and a hearing, to receive such knowledge or to make such inspection or examination” (emphasis added). 9. Should the Court deny the protective order and direct production of the confidential case records, it is respectfully requested that this Court undertake an in-camera review of plaintiffs’ confidential records in defendants’ possession sought in plaintiffs’ discovery demands in order to determine which records bear on plaintiffs’ claims and which do not. Wheeler v. Commissioner of Social Services for the City of New York, 233 A.D.2d 4 (2nd Dept. 1997). Furthermore, if this Court, upon review, concludes that some or all the records should be produced, defendants request that prior to such production, all names, addresses and other identifying information of all non-parties (including and especially children) be redacted. Id. Such redaction will ensure the privacy rights of those not represented herein. 10. In Wheeler v. Commissioner of Social Services for the City of New York, 233 A.D.2d 4 (2nd Dept. 1997), the Court delineated the following procedure for an in-camera inspection: a. Based upon the plaintiff's motion, and the delivery of her records to the court for in camera inspection, the court should mark the records for identification, so that they may be subject to further review, if that is called for. b. The court, in the presence of both sides, should identify the records, by date, and where possible, by the name of the person who made the record. In most 4 4 of 8 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/26/2020 06:45 PM INDEX NO. 154880/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 32 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/26/2020 instances it should be possible to do this without divulging the content of the particular record or breaching any confidentiality. c. When the records are so marked, [the record-keeping party] may seek a protective order pursuant to CPLR 3103 (see, Cynthia B. v. New Rochelle Hosp. Med. Center, 60 N.Y.2d 452, 462 (1983); Matter of Carla L., 45 A.D.2d 375, 382 (1st Dept. 1974) by identifying those records, or portions of the records that it seeks to have withheld, or redacted, and setting forth its reasons. d. The court should clearly specify the grounds for its denial or approval of disclosure with respect to each document or category of documents. In most instances, the court should be able to make these determinations unaided, but we note that it does have the authority to appoint a referee (see, Cynthia B. v. New Rochelle Hosp. Med. Center, supra, at 461, 470 N.Y.S.2d 122, 458 N.E.2d 363) or a law guardian.”” 11. The Wheeler court continued: “Although the verbatim content of any record should not be revealed prematurely, the court, to the extent feasible, should identify, in general terms, any record that Graham Windham seeks to have withheld or redacted by way of protective order. This will give the plaintiff an intelligent basis upon which to argue for disclosure.” Id. at 14. 12. Defendants therefore argue that the Court shall only order disclosure of those of defendants’ records of plaintiffs which are relevant to plaintiff’s claims and necessary for plaintiff to prove his claims. 13. Furthermore, the plaintiff also seeks information that relates to a quality assurance function and /or incident reports prepared pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law § 29.29. Such reports are exempt from disclosure pursuant to Education Law § 6527(3) and Mental Hygiene Law § 29.29 5 5 of 8 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/26/2020 06:45 PM INDEX NO. 154880/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 32 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/26/2020 14. The New York State Education Law § 6527 bars disclosure of the aforementioned records sought by the plaintiff. Education Law § 6527 states in pertinent part as follows: “Neither the proceedings nor the records relating to performance of a medical or quality assurance review function or participation in a medical and dental malpractice prevention program nor any report required by the Department of Health pursuant to section twenty- eight hundred five-l of the Public Health Law described herein, including the investigation of an incident reported pursuant to section 29.29 of the mental hygiene law, shall be subject to disclosure under article thirty-one of the civil practice law and rules” 15. Education Law § 6527 is very specific in stating that “neither proceedings nor records relating to the performance of a medical or quality assurance review are discoverable. This section also specifically addresses records required to be maintained under Mental Hygiene Law § 29.29. Specifically, § 29.29 requires that defendant, SCO FAMILY OF SERVICES, maintain records for each patient in its care. The purpose of this statute, among other things, is to establish standards for the protection of persons in residential care from abuse and maltreatment. These statutes, when read together, bar the discovery of any records which are maintained pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law § 29.29. Education Law specifically bars discovery of those documents which are self-review or quality assurance in nature. It also specifically bars disclosure of incident reports. 16. The purpose of Education Law § 6527 is to promote quality of care through self-review without fear of legal reprisal. SCO FAMILY OF SERVICES relies on the Court of Appeals case Katherine F. v. State of New York, 94 NY2d 200, 702 NYS2d 231 (1999). In Katherine, the plaintiff sought disclosure of incident reports for a personal injury action in which the infant plaintiff was allegedly sexually assaulted by an employee in a facility where the infant was a patient. The Court of Appeals upheld the Appellate Division, which barred disclosure, and 6 6 of 8 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/26/2020 06:45 PM INDEX NO. 154880/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 32 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/26/2020 concluded that Education Law § 6527 and Mental Hygiene Law § 29.29, when read together, bar disclosure of the psychiatric hospital’s incident reports. 17. Furthermore, the Court held that the language of Education Law § 6527(3) is unequivocal. It exempts three categories of documents from disclosure. The records which are exempt are those relating to medical review and quality assurance functions; records reflecting ”participation in a medical malpractice prevention program;” and reports required by the Department of Health pursuant to Public Health Law 2805-1 including incident reports prepared pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law § 29.29. Katherine at, 204. (emphasis added) In addition, the Court held that the investigation into the incident in Katherine reflected a quality assurance review function which is supported by procedures outlined in Mental Hygiene Law § 29.29 and, therefore, barred from disclosure under Education Law § 6572. (emphasis added) Katherine at, 205. See also, Wilson-Gunther ex rel. Wilson v. Crouse Health System, Inc., 32 Misc. 3d 435, 925 N.Y.S. 2d 319(2011), Fray v. Fulton Commons Care Center, Inc., 51 A.D.3d 968, 860 N.Y.S. 2d 543 (2 Dept 2008); LaPierre v. Jewish Bd. Of Family and Children’s Services, Inc. 47 A.D. 3d 896, 850 N.Y.S. 2d 595 (2 Dept. 2008); Finnegan v. State, 179 Misc.2d 694,686 N.Y.S. 589 (1999). In Finnegan, the Court specifically addressed the privilege of incident reports made by employees at a State mental health facility in connection with a severely retarded patient finding they were part of a procedure intended to reduce patient and employee injuries and were obtained and or maintained pursuant to the review procedure and were privileged from discovery under the Education Law. 18. In closing, it is requested that this Court keep in mind the sensitive nature of the documents that have been requested and the public policies supporting the confidentiality of these records upon making its decision herein. If this Court, upon review, concludes that it is 7 7 of 8 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/26/2020 06:45 PM INDEX NO. 154880/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 32 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/26/2020 necessary for some or all of the records to be produced, defendants request that prior to such production, all names, addresses and other identifying information of all non-parties (including and especially children) be redacted. Wheeler at Id. Such redaction will ensure the privacy rights of those not represented herein. Defendants also request that the documents be used solely for the purpose of this litigation and that no party disclose the contents of such documents to anyone not necessarily involved in the prosecution or defense of this action. WHEREFORE, THE CITY OF NEW YORK, THE CITY OF NEW YORK ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN’S SERVICES and SCO FAMILY OF SERVICES, respectfully request that this Court grant this motion seeking a protective order in its entirety, or in the alternative, review the subject records in camera to determine relevancy, and upon a finding that any and/or all of same are discoverable, Order their production upon the redaction of all other identifying information of all non-parties, and such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper. Dated: New York, New York May 26, 2020 ___________________________ ROBERT S. DELMOND 8 8 of 8