ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,
ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as cross-appealed from, and that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was for a protective order denying the defendants' requests for collateral source records is granted; and it is further,
ORDERED that the plaintiff is awarded one bill of costs.
It is well settled that a party waives the physician-patient privilege by affirmatively placing his or her physical or mental condition in issue (see, Cynthia B. v. New Rochelle Hosp. Med. Center, 60 N.Y.2d 452, 456-457; Prink v. Rockefeller Center, 48 N.Y.2d 309; Koump v. Smith, 25 N.Y.2d 287; Zimmer v. Cathedral School of St. Mary and St. Paul, 204 A.D.2d 538, 539). However, a party does not waive the privilege with respect to unrelated illnesses or treatments (see, Sadicario v. Stylebuilt Accessories, 250 A.D.2d 830; Zappi v. Pedigree Ski Shop, 244 A.D.2d 331). In the instant case, since the plaintiff withdrew claims based on the decedent's psychiatric and psychological injuries, the Supreme Court properly determined that the decedent's psychiatric and psychological records were not subject to disclosure (see, Kohn v. Fisch, 262 A.D.2d 535; Strong v. Brookhaven Mem. Hosp. Med. Ctr., 240 A.D.2d 726).
However, the Supreme Court also should have granted the plaintiff a protective order denying the defendants' requests for collateral source information as the plaintiff has not sought to recover the costs of any medical care, custodial care, or rehabilitation services, loss of earnings or other economic loss (see, CPLR 4545[a]).
RITTER, ACTING P.J., FEUERSTEIN, GOLDSTEIN, FRIEDMANN and CRANE, JJ., concur.