| People v Bryant |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 03987 [73 AD3d 1442] |
| May 7, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Michael D.Bryant, Appellant. |
—[*1] Michael C. Green, District Attorney, Rochester (Kelly Christine Wolford of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Joseph D. Valentino, J.),rendered February 28, 2007. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of burglaryin the first degree, attempted robbery in the first degree, criminal possession of a weapon in thesecond degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (two counts) and recklessendangerment in the first degree.
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him of, inter alia, burglary in the firstdegree (Penal Law § 140.30 [1]), defendant contends that Supreme Court erred inadmitting certain evidence at trial because it was obtained directly or indirectly in violation ofhis physician-patient privilege (see CPLR 4504 [a]). We reject that contention. "[E]ven ifthere was a violation of the physician-patient privilege, the suppression of the evidence found asa result is not required. The physician-patient privilege is based on statute, not the State orFederal Constitution . . . [and] a violation of a statute does not, without more,justify suppressing the evidence to which that violation leads" (People v Greene, 9 NY3d 277,280 [2007]; see People v Drayton,56 AD3d 1278, 1278-1279 [2008], appeal dismissed 13 NY3d 902 [2009]). Thefurther contention of defendant that the court improperly limited his cross-examination of aprosecution witness is also without merit. "It is well settled that '[t]he scope of cross-examinationis within the sound discretion of the trial court' " (People v Baker, 294 AD2d 888, 889[2002], lv denied 98 NY2d 708 [2002]). Here, the record establishes that defendant wasgiven wide latitude in cross-examining the witness in question, and the court limited thecross-examination in merely a single instance that could not have affected the outcome of thetrial. Present—Scudder, P.J., Smith, Peradotto, Lindley and Sconiers, JJ.