People v. Tissois, 72 N.Y.2d 78 (1988)

Statements made to a registered social worker are confidential communications protected from disclosure by statute (CPLR 4508), and a defendant’s claim for such statements under People v. Rosario is insufficient to overcome this privilege unless specific exceptions apply.

Summary

The defendant was convicted of rape and sexual abuse. Prior to trial, the child victims were interviewed by a social worker. The defendant sought access to the social worker’s notes under People v. Rosario, arguing they were necessary for cross-examination. The Brooklyn Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (BSPCC) asserted the social worker privilege under CPLR 4508. The trial court denied the defendant’s request after an in-camera inspection. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the statutory privilege protected the notes from disclosure and the defendant failed to demonstrate entitlement to the material despite the privilege.

Facts

The defendant was accused of rape and sexual abuse by three young children who temporarily lived with him and their parents. The defendant claimed the children were coerced into making false accusations by their father. To support his defense, the defendant subpoenaed the notes of a social worker from the BSPCC who had interviewed and counseled the children before the trial.

Procedural History

The trial court denied the defendant’s request for the social worker’s notes after an in-camera inspection, finding no exculpatory or inconsistent information. The defendant was subsequently convicted. He appealed, arguing that the denial violated the Rosario rule. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction, and the defendant appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

Whether the defendant’s claim to statements made by prosecution witnesses to a social worker, under the rule of People v. Rosario, is sufficient to overcome the statutory privilege protecting those communications from disclosure under CPLR 4508?

Holding

No, because the social worker’s notes are protected by statutory privilege (CPLR 4508), and the defendant failed to demonstrate entitlement to the material despite the privilege.

Court’s Reasoning

The court reasoned that CPLR 4508 prohibits a registered social worker from disclosing communications made by a client during professional employment. The court distinguished this case from People v. De Jesus, where the prosecutor failed to assert the statutory privilege, thus depriving the defendant of the opportunity to make a record regarding the privilege. In this case, the BSPCC expressly invoked the CPLR 4508 privilege when producing the documents for in-camera review. Therefore, it became the defendant’s responsibility to demonstrate why he was entitled to the material despite the privilege. The defendant failed to assert any applicable exceptions to the prohibition of disclosure under CPLR 4508(a) or raise any additional basis for entitlement. The court noted that the social worker’s notes were not in the possession or control of the People, further weakening the Rosario claim. Because the statutory privilege was properly invoked, and the defendant failed to overcome it, the trial court’s decision was upheld. As the court stated, “[I]t was incumbent upon defendant to demonstrate entitlement to the material despite the statutory privilege.”