People v. Bird

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Bird

284 A.D.2d 339, 725 N.Y.S.2d 573, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5602

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJune 4, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 284 A.D.2d 339 (People v. Bird) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Bird, 284 A.D.2d 339, 725 N.Y.S.2d 573, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5602 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Dowling, J.), rendered April 12, 1999, convicting him of sexual abuse in the first degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Psychiatric records “are to be disclosed only when their confidentiality is significantly outweighed by the interests of justice” (People v Brooks, 199 AD2d 275). Having examined the psychiatric hospitalization records of the complaining witness, we find that the trial court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant’s application for disclosure of such records, after an in camera review (see, People v Toledo, 270 AD2d 805). O’Brien, J. P., Florio, Feuerstein and Smith, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Dowling, J.), rendered April 12, 1999, convicting him of sexual abuse in the first degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Psychiatric records “are to be disclosed only when their confidentiality is significantly outweighed by the interests of justice” (People v Brooks, 199 AD2d 275). Having examined the psychiatric hospitalization records of the complaining witness, we find that the trial court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant’s application for disclosure of such records, after an in camera review (see, People v Toledo, 270 AD2d 805). O’Brien, J. P., Florio, Feuerstein and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

284 A.D.2d 339, 725 N.Y.S.2d 573, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5602, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-bird-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack