Opinion
October 23, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (McInerney, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (5).
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15).
The defendant sought dismissal of the indictment on the ground that it was based upon evidence obtained in violation of his physician-patient privilege (see, CPLR 4504). The trial court properly denied the motion since the privilege is abrogated "[f]or the purposes of duties arising out of [article 33 of the Public Health Law]" (Public Health Law § 3373; see, People v Figueroa, 173 A.D.2d 156). Contrary to the defendant's contention, for the exception to the privilege to apply, it is not essential that a practitioner initiate contact with law enforcement officials by reporting a suspected drug abuser (see, Public Health Law § 3372). To conclude otherwise would insulate from prosecution a patient such as the defendant who hides from a practitioner the fact that he is receiving drugs from another practitioner (see, Public Health Law § 3397). This would frustrate the purpose of the statutory scheme (see, Matter of Camperlengo v. Blum, 56 N.Y.2d 251). Furthermore, the defendant's conduct in acquiring and possessing various controlled substances in violation of Public Health Law article 33 abrogated the privilege in this case ( see, Public Health Law § 3397 [a]; [4]).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit. Sullivan, J.P., Miller, Copertino and Goldstein, JJ., concur.