People v Simmons

[*1] People v Simmons 2017 NY Slip Op 51391(U) Decided on May 11, 2017 County Court, Monroe County Valleriani, J. 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 May 11, 2017
County Court, Monroe County

The People of the State of New York, Plaintiff,

against

Silvon S. Simmons, Defendant.



2016-0404



For the People:

SANDRA DOORLEY, ESQ.

Monroe County District Attorney

BY: JULIE HAHN, ESQ.

KEVIN FITZGERALD, ESQ.

Assistant District Attorneys

47 S. Fitzhugh Street

Rochester, New York 14614

For the City of Rochester:

BRIAN CURRAN, ESQ.

City of Rochester Corporation Counsel

BY: JOHN M. CAMPOLIETO, ESQ.

Assistant Municipal Attorney

400A City Hall - 30 Church Street

Rochester, New York 14614

For the Defendant:

TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, ESQ.

Monroe County Public Defender

BY: ELIZABETH RILEY, ESQ.

KATIE HIGGINS, ESQ.

Assistant Public Defenders

10 N. Fitzhugh Street

Rochester, New York 14614
Sam L. Valleriani, J.

Defendant filed a motion and memorandum of law in support of an in camera review and disclosure, if warranted, of Rochester Police Department Officer Joseph Ferrigno's medical/psychiatric records (treatment records) in the possession of the City of Rochester (City) pertaining to the officer's diagnosis and treatment of post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The City opposed.[FN1]

The Court heard oral argument on the matter at which, among other things, the defendant and the City amplified their positions. Upon considering the parties' arguments and the applicable law, the Court signed a subpoena duces tecum ordering that the officer's treatment records in the City's possession be provided to the Court for an in camera review.

The officer's treatment records were subsequently provided to the Court. As the Court found various portions of the records, comprised of handwritten notes, illegible, the records were supplemented, at the Court's request, by a verbatim transcription of same, which was provided by the treating physician.

The Court, having carefully reviewed the officer's treatment records as well as the related transcription, and having duly considered the parties' respective positions and the applicable law, finds that disclosure is unwarranted.[FN2] "Confidential psychiatric records should be disclosed only when their confidentiality is significantly outweighed by the interests of justice" (People v Fullen, 133 AD3d 1235, 1236 [4th Dept 2015], lv denied 27 NY3d 997 [2016] [citation and internal quotation marks omitted]). Upon reviewing the officer's treatment records, to include the related transcription, the Court finds that there is "nothing in the records that [is] relevant to the [officer's] credibility or competency to testify" (id. at 1236 [citations omitted]). In addition, the records do not reveal any psychiatric history or mental impairment or defect associated to the officer's PTSD diagnosis and treatment that bear on his ability to perceive or recall the circumstances surrounding the underlying pursuit, stop and arrest (see People v Cox, 145 AD3d 1507, 1508 [4th Dept 2016] [citations omitted]). Nor, in this Court's view, do the records and supplemental transcription reveal "any other basis for concluding that the confidentiality of [the officer's treatment] records [is] significantly outweighed by the interests of justice" (id. [citations omitted]).

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the defendant's request for disclosure of the officer's treatment records reviewed by this Court related to his diagnosis and treatment of PTSD is denied in its entirety; and it is further

ORDERED, that the treatment records and related transcription reviewed pursuant to this decision shall be retained by this Court under seal and made available only upon request of the Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department, for any appellate review of this matter.

Dated: May 11, 2017

Rochester, New York

__________________________________

HON. SAM L. VALLERIANI

Monroe County Court Judge Footnotes

Footnote 1: The People are without standing to assert their opposition.

Footnote 2: This written decision more fully and formally sets forth the Court's official determination on this issue; thus, to the extent that it at all differs from the Court's May 4, 2017 oral decision, this written decision takes precedence.