by the medical records privilege, we do not review the highlighted information to determine if it does fall into the medical records privilege. 6 . The documents subject to this argument include the documents that were the subject of the medical records privilege argument and all remaining documents. 7 . Plaintiff also bases his claim of a violation of privacy issues on constitutional, as contrasted with statutory, grounds. We reject the constitutional argument because it was not raised in the trial court. 8 . We do not hold that an expert affidavit is always necessary to show relevance or discovera-bility in a case where confidentiality, and thus privacy, interests are at stake. See Baldwin by Baldwin v. Franklin General Hosp., 151 A.D.2d 532, 533, 542 N.Y.S.2d 667 (N.Y.App.Div.1989) (<HOLDING>). That will depend on the nature of the claim
holding that the school records of the plaintiffs nonparty siblings were admissible at trial when expert testimony established that the records were relevant according to standard relevancy test holding that relevance and discoverability of academic records were established by mothers testimony that brother of plaintiff also had speech impairment and learning difficulties requiring special education holding that university students redacted disciplinary records were not education records holding that records relating to a student court were not education records holding academic records of siblings admissible based on expert affidavit stating that a possible connection existed between the neurological problems of the plaintiff and those of her siblings which would support a defense that the injuries sustained by the plaintiff have a genetic cause