- Court
- New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department
- Case
- Singh v. BSC, LLC
- Date
- June 3, 2026
- Slip Op. No.
- 2026 NY Slip Op 03465
Background
Plaintiff Pamela Singh commenced this action for personal injuries she allegedly sustained when she tripped and fell in her Brooklyn apartment bedroom on two separate occasions. In her bill of particulars, she alleged a right knee injury. At deposition, plaintiff testified about two prior motor vehicle accidents, one of which in July 2018 also caused a right knee injury. Defendants subsequently learned of three additional motor vehicle accidents and demanded authorizations for records related to those accidents.
Plaintiff refused, and defendants moved to compel production. Supreme Court, Kings County (Leon Ruchelsman, J.), denied the motion. Defendants appealed.
Holding
The Appellate Division, Second Department, modified the order. The Court directed that plaintiff provide authorizations to obtain the records, but only for submission to the Supreme Court for in camera inspection, rather than direct production to defendants. The Court found that plaintiff waived the physician-patient privilege by placing her right knee injuries in controversy through allegations that her injuries were “aggravated, accelerated, and/or exacerbated” by the apartment falls. However, because plaintiff’s equivocal deposition testimony made it impossible to determine on the existing record whether the motor vehicle accident records were actually relevant, in camera review was the appropriate procedure.
Takeaways
This decision demonstrates the Second Department’s nuanced approach to medical privacy and discovery in personal injury cases. A plaintiff who claims aggravation of a pre-existing condition waives the physician-patient privilege as to that condition, but the waiver does not automatically extend to all prior medical history. Where the relevance of prior accident records is uncertain, in camera inspection provides a middle ground that protects the plaintiff’s privacy while allowing the court to determine what is discoverable. Defense counsel should not assume that placing a condition in controversy opens the floodgates to all prior medical records.
Why It Matters
Personal injury practitioners on both sides should note this decision’s practical guidance on medical record discovery. Plaintiffs who allege aggravation or exacerbation of injuries must expect scrutiny of prior incidents, but retain a measure of privacy protection through the in camera inspection mechanism. Defense counsel confronting uncertain relevance should request in camera review rather than broad authorizations, as courts are more likely to grant the former. The decision also illustrates the importance of careful deposition questioning to establish the factual basis for discovery requests regarding prior injuries.