S.M. et al. v. City of New York et al.
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Healthcare privacy and civil discovery: whether a criminal defendant's filing of a Criminal Procedure Law (CPL) 250.10 notice [notice of intent to present psychiatric evidence or a psychiatric defense] waives confidentiality protections over medical and psychiatric records in a related civil negligence action.
The Supreme Court, Bronx County denied plaintiffs' motion to renew as moot after a prior appellate ruling, leaving in place a protective order that barred disclosure of Shanice Martin's records held by New York City Health + Hospitals/Lincoln Medical Center (NYCHH).
The Appellate Division reversed the order denying renewal, granted renewal, and upon renewal granted plaintiffs' cross-motion to compel disclosure of Martin's medical, psychiatric, and mental health records.
The Court held that Martin's CPL 250.10 notice was a new fact that justified renewal and that, by filing that notice, Martin placed her mental condition in issue and thereby waived the confidentiality protections of Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) 4504 [physician-patient privilege], CPLR 4507 [psychologist-patient privilege], and Mental Hygiene Law § 33.13(c) [privilege for patient information reported to the Office of Mental Health or the Office for People with Developmental Disabilities].
Background
This civil action arose from an April 27, 2019 stabbing in which Shanice Martin stabbed her two children, killing one and injuring the other. The surviving child and her father sued NYCHH and others, alleging NYCHH negligently treated Martin shortly before the attack despite her extensive mental health history and failed to detain her, report child abuse concerns, or otherwise protect the child. Plaintiffs sought Martin's Lincoln Hospital records, but NYCHH refused to disclose them based on statutory confidentiality and privilege protections. Plaintiffs originally moved to compel disclosure under CPLR 3101(a) and Mental Hygiene Law § 33.13(c)(1), arguing the interests of justice outweighed confidentiality and that Martin had effectively waived privilege through related proceedings. After the original motion was denied and while an appeal was pending, plaintiffs moved to renew based chiefly on Martin's November 29, 2021 CPL 250.10 notice in her criminal case stating that she intended to present a psychiatric defense because she allegedly suffered from a dangerous mental disorder that rendered her unable to appreciate the consequences or wrongfulness of her acts.
Lower Court Decision
The motion court first granted NYCHH a protective order and denied plaintiffs' motion to compel, finding that Mental Hygiene Law § 33.13(c)(1) did not justify disclosure in the interests of justice and that Martin had not waived confidentiality. In a prior appeal, the Appellate Division agreed that plaintiffs had not then shown consent or waiver, although it directed an in camera review for nonmedical factual observations in the records. Later, when plaintiffs moved to renew based on Martin's CPL 250.10 notice and criminal court disclosure order, the motion court denied renewal as moot in light of the prior appellate decision.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division held that the renewal motion was not moot because the prior appeal had expressly declined to decide the CPL 250.10 waiver issue. It further held that renewal was proper under CPLR 2221(e) because Martin's CPL 250.10 notice did not exist when plaintiffs filed their original motion and would have changed the result. On the merits, the Court concluded that the filing of a CPL 250.10 notice itself was enough to show that Martin placed her mental condition in issue. Relying on Court of Appeals precedent concerning waiver when a litigant uses mental condition as a sword while attempting to preserve privilege as a shield, and emphasizing the disclosure purposes of CPL 250.10 and modern criminal discovery under CPL article 245, the Court ruled that Martin waived confidentiality protections over the records sought in this related civil case. The Court therefore reversed, granted renewal, and compelled disclosure.
Legal Significance
The decision establishes in the First Department that filing a CPL 250.10 notice in a criminal case can itself effect a waiver of medical and psychiatric privileges for related civil litigation, even before trial and even if the defendant later might abandon the psychiatric defense. The Court aligned the waiver analysis with the purpose of CPL 250.10 and New York's automatic criminal discovery regime under CPL article 245, and clarified that actual admission of the records at the criminal trial is not necessary where the defendant has clearly put mental condition in issue.
In a related civil case, a criminal defendant who files a CPL 250.10 notice signaling an insanity or other psychiatric defense may lose the ability to block disclosure of relevant medical and mental health records on privilege grounds.