Manhattan Resident Claiming Emotional Distress in Doorman Assault Suit Can't Shield Mental Health Records
A state appeals panel said resident Steven Rosen “put his mental condition in issue by seeking to recover damages for emotional distress as a result of the actions alleged" in a complaint that alleged his doorman came after him with a wrench and used anti-Semitic language against him, among other harassing actions.
November 09, 2018 at 05:27 PM
4 minute read
A Manhattan resident claiming emotional distress damages in a lawsuit that alleges his apartment building's doorman harassed and assaulted him, including by coming after him with a wrench and using anti-Semitic language against him, cannot shield his own mental health records, a state appeals court has decided.
An Appellate Division, First Department panel has ruled that resident Steven Rosen “put his mental condition in issue by seeking to recover damages for emotional distress as a result of the actions alleged in the complaint,” citing Cynthia B. v New Rochelle Hosp. Med. Ctr. and Budano v. Gurdon.
As a result, the unanimous panel upheld Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Erika Edwards' 2017 decision that denied Rosen's motion for a protective order concealing his mental-health records; rejected his alternative request for an in-camera records inspection; and ordered Rosen to provide the defendants, which included the realty and management companies overseeing his building, with unlimited authorization for all mental health records connected to his treatment for his alleged injuries.
The panel, composed of Justices David Friedman, Rosalyn Richter, Marcy Kahn, Jeffrey Oing and Peter Moulton, also noted in their decision, issued on Thursday, that Rosen never specified “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,” citing CPLR 3103[a].
Moreover, he failed to “otherwise establish that disclosure would be detrimental to himself or a third party,” the justices wrote.
Concluding the terse opinion, the justices also wrote that “in any event, it is noted that plaintiff previously stipulated to unlimited disclosure of his mental health treatment records,” citing Quilty v. Cormier.
In his 2015-filed complaint, Rosen alleged that doorman Francisco Medina, also a named defendant, spit at him, threw a package at him, came after him while holding a wrench, cursed at him, used anti-Semitic language against him, threw away his unit and mailbox keys, and otherwise harassed and intimidated him.
He alleged he was paying nearly $2,200 a month in rent at the Murray Hill Manor building while occupying a rent-regulated apartment. The claims he brought included negligent hiring against the realty company, as well as assault and battery.
In her 2017 decision, Edwards noted that Rosen had failed to comply with numerous court orders requiring disclosure of his psychological and emotional treatment records, and had not complied with the parties' so-ordered stipulation. Edwards wrote that it appeared Rosen withdrew an authorization he'd provided to the defendants and stopped a doctor from handing the records over, instead allowing only the disclosure on one letter which, Edwards wrote, “is insufficient to comply with the court orders.”
Michael Fahey, a Bartels & Feureisen member in White Plains who represented Rosen, said in a phone interview Friday that he was astounded by the First Department panel's decision.
“I was surprised at the First Dept's decision, I felt at a minimum these records should have been reviewed in camera,” he said, adding that earlier in the litigation, “we initially got a stay [that protected the records], which I thought was appropriate.”
He also said that in court papers filed in the case, “we articulated that we don't believe that [the records] are related to the claims that are made in this case.”
Magdalene Skountzos, a former senior associate at Brody, O'Connor & O'Connor in New York who represented Medina, said the panel's decision was right.
Rosen “has claimed that the alleged incidents caused emotional distress, but he would not allow defendants to access his records, thereby preventing us from assessing whether the damages claimed were actually caused by the alleged incidents,” she said.
Lauren Bryant, an associate at Mischel & Horn in New York, representing defendants MHM Realty LLC and Manhattan Skyline Management Corp., couldn't be reached for comment.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTrade Fixtures In New York Eminent Domain Cases - What Qualifies and How Are They Valued?
10 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250