Key Takeaway
New York Court of Appeals case examining how Sixth Amendment confrontation rights can override HIPAA privacy protections in criminal proceedings involving hospital records.
This article is part of our ongoing evidence coverage, with 126 published articles analyzing evidence issues across New York State. Attorney Jason Tenenbaum brings 24+ years of hands-on experience to this analysis, drawing from his work on more than 1,000 appeals, over 100,000 no-fault cases, and recovery of over $100 million for clients throughout Nassau County, Suffolk County, Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, and the Bronx. For personalized legal advice about how these principles apply to your specific situation, contact our Long Island office at (516) 750-0595 for a free consultation.
Since we have a HIPPA compliant judge this term in the Bronx Civil Court, I found a case, albeit criminal, which while not on point, shows the limits of HIPPA:
People v Jaikaran,2012 NY Slip Op 03464 (2d Dept. 2012)
“Here, the hospital records were properly certified (see CPLR 4518[a]; CPL 60.10) and they included several statements by the complainant wherein she told the hospital staff, inter alia, that she was not sexually active and that she had not been the victim of sexual abuse. These portions of the hospital records were admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule (see People v Ortega, 15 NY3d 610, 616-617). While the People argue that the hospital records were properly precluded on the ground that they were privileged (see CPLR 4504; CPL 60.10), a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right of confrontation can overcome a statutory privilege (see Davis v Alaska, 415 US 308, 319-320). The right of confrontation furnishes a criminal defendant with (1) the right physically to face those who testify against him or her, and (2) the right to conduct cross-examination (see Pennsylvania v Ritchie, 480 US 39, 51). In this case, the complainant’s statutory physician-patient privilege (see Dillenbeck v Hess, 73 NY2d 278, 283) is in direct conflict with the defendant’s constitutional right of confrontation. Therefore, under the circumstances, the policy underlying the statutory privilege “must yield to the defendant’s constitutional right of confrontation”
Again, HIPPA and privileges have their limits. I think this case is right on point for that proposition. As to its application to no-fault, I leave the application of this case to others out there.
Free Consultation · No Fee Unless We Win
Does this apply to your situation?
Every case is different. Get a free, confidential case review from an experienced attorney who can tell you exactly where you stand.
Related Articles
- Court guidance on the business records exception to hearsay rules
- Expert medical testimony and unsworn MRI reports as competent evidence
- Civil Court decisions in No-Fault insurance cases and evidentiary challenges
- Foundation requirements for medical malpractice expert testimony
- New York No-Fault Insurance Law
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2012 post, New York’s evidence rules regarding medical records admissibility may have been modified through amendments to CPLR 4518 and related procedural statutes, and federal HIPAA regulations have undergone revisions that could affect the intersection of privacy protections and confrontation rights. Practitioners should verify current provisions of both New York evidence law and federal privacy regulations when addressing medical record disclosure issues.
Legal Context
Why This Matters for Your Case
New York law is among the most complex and nuanced in the country, with distinct procedural rules, substantive doctrines, and court systems that differ significantly from other jurisdictions. The Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) governs every stage of civil litigation, from service of process through trial and appeal. The Appellate Division, Appellate Term, and Court of Appeals create a rich and ever-evolving body of case law that practitioners must follow.
Attorney Jason Tenenbaum has practiced across these areas for over 24 years, writing more than 1,000 appellate briefs and publishing over 2,353 legal articles that attorneys and clients rely on for guidance. The analysis in this article reflects real courtroom experience — from motion practice in Civil Court and Supreme Court to oral arguments before the Appellate Division — and a deep understanding of how New York courts actually apply the law in practice.
About This Topic
Evidentiary Issues in New York Litigation
The rules of evidence determine what information a court or arbitrator may consider in deciding a case. In New York no-fault and personal injury practice, evidentiary issues arise constantly — from the admissibility of business records and medical reports to the foundation requirements for expert testimony and the application of hearsay exceptions. These articles examine how New York courts apply evidentiary rules in insurance and injury litigation, with practical guidance for building admissible evidence at every stage of a case.
126 published articles in Evidence
Keep Reading
More Evidence Analysis
CPLR § 2106 Amendment Eliminates Affidavit Notarization Requirement: What This Means for New York Litigation
New York's CPLR 2106 permits affirmations in place of many sworn documents. See the 2024 and 2025 changes, exceptions, and historical case notes.
Feb 18, 2026
When the trial court in a bench trial does not assess credibility
Learn when NY appellate courts can review bench trial credibility findings. Expert legal analysis of appellate standards. Call 516-750-0595 for consultation.
Nov 3, 2019
Judicial notice of the Supreme Court file
New York Appellate Term explores judicial notice boundaries in res judicata case, examining when courts "may" take notice of Supreme Court records without party request.
Mar 21, 2016
The doctor himself could not get his bills into evidence
Court rejects doctor's testimony on billing records foundation in NY no-fault case, finding gaps in witness knowledge of separate billing company procedures.
Apr 11, 2013
CPLR 3101(d) Expert Disclosure Strikes: Why Pre-Trial Rulings Are Not Appealable
Balcom v Reither holds that motions to strike CPLR 3101(d) expert disclosures are evidentiary rulings made in advance of trial and are not appealable.
Oct 30, 2010
EUO Admissibility and CPLR 3212(f): Critical Evidence Rules for New York No-Fault Practice
Master EUO transcript admissibility and CPLR 3212(f) applications in NY no-fault practice.
Jan 14, 2010Was this article helpful?
Disclaimer: This article is published by the Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C. for informational and educational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice, and no attorney-client relationship is formed by reading this content. The legal principles discussed may not apply to your specific situation, and the law may have changed since this article was last updated.
New York law varies by jurisdiction — court decisions in one Appellate Division department may not be followed in another, and local court rules in Nassau County Supreme Court differ from those in Suffolk County Supreme Court, Kings County Civil Court, or Queens County Supreme Court. The Appellate Division, Second Department (which covers Long Island, Brooklyn, Queens, and Staten Island) and the Appellate Term (which hears appeals from lower courts) each have distinct procedural requirements and precedents that affect litigation strategy.
If you need legal help with a evidence matter, contact our office at (516) 750-0595 for a free consultation. We serve clients throughout Long Island (Huntington, Babylon, Islip, Brookhaven, Smithtown, Riverhead, Southampton, East Hampton), Nassau County (Hempstead, Garden City, Mineola, Great Neck, Manhasset, Freeport, Long Beach, Rockville Centre, Valley Stream, Westbury, Hicksville, Massapequa), Suffolk County (Hauppauge, Deer Park, Bay Shore, Central Islip, Patchogue, Brentwood), Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, the Bronx, Staten Island, and Westchester County. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
