People v. Valdez

• Decision Date: 01 July 2022
• Docket Number: Docket No. CR-011053-22BX
• Citation: 2022 NY Slip Op 50548 (U)
• Parties: The People of the State of New York v. Valdez, Defendant.
• Court: New York Criminal Court

2022 NY Slip Op 50548(U)

The People of the State of New York
v.
Valdez, Defendant.

Docket No. CR-011053-22BX

Criminal Court of the City of New York, Bronx County

July 1, 2022

Unpublished Opinion

For the People: Darcel Clark, District Attorney of Bronx County (By ADA Christopher Ronan Conway)

For Mr. Valdez: The Bronx Defenders (By Julema LaForce)

Wanda L. Licitra, J.

Upon an affirmation, the People have applied to the Court for a subpoena commanding St. Barnabas Hospital to produce Mr. Valdez's medical records. For the following reasons, the application is DENIED.

On June 30, 2022, the People applied to the Court for a subpoena duces tecum. The subpoena seeks to command St. Barnabas Hospital to provide:

The medical record pertaining to [Mr. Valdez] between 6/23/2022 and the present day, including but not limited to any and all related reports, photographs, and notes by medical personnel related to the diagnosis and treatment of the above-referenced patient, any incident reports, and any and all records of psychological testing

Article 600 of the Criminal Procedure Law governs subpoenas in criminal proceedings. Applicable here, C.P.L. § 610.20(4) requires that a party seeking a subpoena show that the evidence sought is "reasonably likely to be relevant and material to the proceedings."

The People have not shown that the subpoena they seek would reasonably result in relevant and material evidence. In part of their papers, the People accuse Mr. Valdez of "engaging in a protracted physical struggle" with EMS and police personnel and "slap[ping] the buttocks of a female EMT." Aff. for Subpoena at 1-2. They allege this occurred in "the hallway of [Mr. Valdez's] building." Id. at 1. And they allege that Mr. Valdez was "transported by FDNY to St. Barnabas Hospital after this incident as an intoxicated patient." Id. The People assert they are "in possession of a video surveillance clip which depicts the assault in its entirety." Id. at 2.

But the People's subsequent boilerplate argument does not credibly justify why these medical records are "reasonably likely to be relevant and material to the proceedings." The People concede that "it is not a typical step to ask for a defendant's medical record." Id. However, they assert that the records here are so "inextricably intertwined" with "the question of fact" around "this crime" that a subpoena is justified. Id.

Despite claiming that the records here are so...