Matter of Stiehler
Annotate this CaseDecided on September 28, 2005
Surrogate's Court, Richmond County
In the Matter of the Estate of Catherine Stiehler, Deceased.
A-20/04
John A. Fusco, J.
In this contested administration proceeding, the decedent, Catherine Stiehler, died from a gunshot wound to the head on December 8, 2003. Arrested and charged with the crime was decedent's husband, John Stiehler, who was to be arraigned on December 31, 2003, but who died on January 4, 2004 at Bellevue Hospital.
Limited and restricted letters of administration were duly issued herein on October 5, 2004 to the petitioner, Jean Artesi, decedent's sister, who continues to act as fiduciary. In that capacity, Ms. Artesi petitioned for a judgment and order holding that John Stiehler was instrumental in having caused the death of his wife, and that as a wrongdoer, he cannot profit from his wrongful act, and should not share in this estate.
Opposing this petition is Walter Remiszewski, John Stiehler's cousin and distributee of his estate. Gary D.Gotlin, Public Administrator of Richmond County, and temporary administrator in the Estate of John Stiehler, takes no position regarding the requested relief.
This proceeding, however, is now in the discovery phase. As part of his discovery, Aaron David Frishberg, Esq., counsel for Mr. Remiszewski, served various subpoenas and demands seeking records relating to the decedent and her husband. Currently pending for the Court's determination are two motions for protective orders relating to a subpoena served on New York City Adult Protective Services and a Demand for Production of Documents served on Lainie Fastman, Esq., the attorney for the petitioner.
As to the Judicial Subpoena Duces Tecum served on New York City Adult Protective Services, Debra Anne Gandler, Esq., from Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, has filed an attorney's affirmation to quash the subpoena. She contends that the records sought are confidential and not subject to disclosure pursuant to Social Services Law § 473-e. At the Court's request, the information sought to be discovered was delivered to the Court for an in camera review.
After reviewing the material submitted, the Court finds the information contained therein to be already known by all parties involved. Accordingly, there is no reason to violate the confidentiality of the Adult Protective Services materials and direct compliance with the subpoena served upon them, and the motion for a Protective Order is hereby granted.
As to the Order to Show Cause for a Protective Order, the Court must first review the underlying Demand for Production of Documents served by respondent Walter Remiszewski. He seeks medical records of the decedent, Catherine Stiehler, for treatment for a subdural [*2]hematoma, aortic valve replacement, ovarian cyst, and uterine leiomyoma. He contends that these records are essential for review by his expert witness, a forensic psychiatrist, Dr. Stephen S. Teich. He states that Dr. Teich's expert opinion would support the affirmative defense that John Stiehler may have been suffering from a mental disease or defect at the time that he shot his wife. Dr. Teich has already offered his opinion, by affidavit, that Catherine Stiehler's state of health may have been a "stressor" or a trigger precipitating John Stiehler to act out while suffering a psychotic episode. Indeed, Dr. Teich states that his review of Catherine's medical records would therefore be crucial for his testimony in support of this defense.
The memorandum of law in support of the Protective Order submitted by petitioner's attorney, Lainie Fastman, Esq., is well written and legally sound. Furthermore, it is unopposed by counsel for the respondent. Ms. Fastman rejects the validity of the "trigger" theory as espoused by Dr. Teich. As she points out in her memo, New York courts currently apply the standard articulated in Frye v United States (293 F.1013) in determining the reliability of expert testimony (People v Wesley, 83 NY2d 417). The Frye standard, in essence, holds that expert testimony based on a scientific principle or a procedure is only admissible after the "principle or procedure has gained general acceptance in its specified field." The proponent of the expert testimony must lay a proper foundation establishing that the processes and methods employed by the expert in formulating his or her opinions adhere to accepted standards of reliability within the field, through judicial opinions, scientific or legal writings, or expert opinion other than that of the proffered expert (People v LeGrand, 196 Misc 2d 179).
Under the Frye test, courts essentially perform a gatekeeper function by making an initial determination as to whether or not the basis of expert opinion has gained sufficient general acceptance in a particular field in order to be considered reliable, and to justify admission at trial (DeMeyer v Advantage Auto, 797 NYS2d 743, NY Slip Op 25252).
In the case at bar, respondent's expert has failed to illustrate with particularity that his "trigger" theory has achieved general acceptance in the field of psychiatry. In fact, respondent has not cited a single case in support of his psychiatric report, nor has he made any effort to lay a foundation for the introduction of his theory of insane episodes brought about by a "trigger" such as a wife's ill health. Indeed, respondent's expert never physically examined John Stiehler, nor his medical records, and has failed to establish even the existence of John Stiehler's psychosis.
No threshold evidentiary foundation is offered by respondent's expert that acknowledges the validity of the "trigger" theory or its acceptance in the relevant medical community. As a matter of law, the opinions of Dr. Teich are not based on scientifically valid principles and, therefore, do not meet the requirement of Frye. This is precisely the kind of evidence that a trial judge must exclude in performing the gatekeeper function.
Accordingly, petitioner's motion for a Protective Order is hereby granted, striking and denying respondent's Demand for Production of Documents relating to the medical condition of Catherine Stiehler.
This matter is restored to the Court's Calender for October 19, 2005 at 9:30 a.m. for further disposition consistent with the decision herein.
This decision shall constitute the Order of the Court.
Dated: September 28, 2005
John A. Fusco, Surrogate
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
