People v Frazier (Douglas)

[*1] People v Frazier (Douglas) 2013 NY Slip Op 52125(U) Decided on December 13, 2013 Appellate Term, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on December 13, 2013
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Lowe, III, P.J., Hunter, Jr., Torres, JJ
570537/11.

The People of the State of New York, Respondent, - -

against

Douglas Frazier, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Rita M. Mella, J.), rendered May 12, 2011, after a nonjury trial, convicting him of attempted assault in the third degree, and imposing sentence.

Per Curiam.

Judgment of conviction (Rita M. Mella, J.), rendered May 12, 2011, affirmed.

The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the trial court's credibility determinations. The court, as factfinder, reasonably could conclude that defendant's assaultive conduct during the domestic quarrel — an alteration which left the victim bloodied and with a tooth missing — was not a "mistake" or "accident," but was actuated by the requisite intent to cause physical injury (see Penal Law § 120.00[1]; Matter of Keene J., 253 AD2d 679 [1998]).

Nor did the trial court err in admitting into evidence the victim's medical records. The victim, having freely discussed with the police her medical condition and defendant's involvement in causing it, waived any expectation of confidentiality in her medical records and the concomitant right to invoke the statutory physician-patient privilege provided for in CPLR 4504(a)(see People v Pagan, 190 Misc 2d 474, 475-476 [2002]; see also Matter of Farrow v Allen, 194 AD2d 40, 44 [1993]). Moreover, even if an unwaived violation of the privilege were shown, exclusion of the victim's medical records was not required in this case where any such statutory violation did not implicate fundamental constitutional interests or considerations (see People v Greene, 9 NY3d 277, 280 [2007]; People v Whyte, 48 AD3d 1040, 1041 [2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 872 [2008], cert denied 555 US 872 [2008]; see also Matter of Quadon H., 55 AD3d 834, 835 [2008]). In any event, any evidentiary error was harmless in the context of this bench trial and given the overwhelming evidence of defendant's guilt (see People v Bedessie, 78 AD3d 960, 960-961 [2010], affd 19 NY3d 147 [2012]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT. [*2]
I concurI concurI concur
Decision Date: December 13, 2013