## Facts

- On June 1, 2014, NYPD Officers Edwin Vazquez and Stephanie Hanna encountered Hector Garcia Ortiz lying on a sidewalk in upper Manhattan.
- The officers called an ambulance; Ortiz was taken to a hospital for treatment.
- Hospital records described Ortiz as intoxicated and violent or belligerent; he was sedated.
- During the hospital encounter, providers discovered a significant knee injury (a tibial plateau fracture), treated him, and discharged him with instructions and follow-up care.
- Ortiz later sued the City of New York and the officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging he was not intoxicated on June 1 and that the officers wrongfully assaulted and seized him.
- The City and officers denied assaulting Ortiz and contended he was intoxicated and combative.
- Before trial, defendants sought to introduce (1) records from the June 1, 2014 hospitalization and two follow-up visits and (2) additional medical records showing Ortiz received treatment for intoxication on four other occasions before and after June 1.
- Defendants argued the additional intoxication-related records showed chronic alcohol abuse and were relevant to the jury’s assessment of Ortiz’s conduct on June 1, his credibility and memory, and his damages claim.
- Defendants also argued the pre–June 1 records were admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) (as “other acts” evidence to show knowledge) and that the pattern of intoxication-related hospitalizations qualified as habit evidence under Rule 406.

## Issues

1. Whether Ortiz’s intoxication-related hospitalizations on other dates (before and after June 1, 2014) were admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) for a non-propensity purpose such as knowledge.
2. Whether repeated intoxication-related hospitalizations qualified as “habit” evidence admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 406.
3. Whether, even if marginally relevant, the additional intoxication-related hospitalizations should be excluded under Federal Rule of Evidence 403 due to unfair prejudice, confusion, or wasted time.
4. What scope of Ortiz’s June 1, 2014 medical records and closely related follow-up records could be admitted to show his condition, behavior, treatment, and injuries associated with the incident at issue.

## Decision

- The court permitted admission of medical records from Ortiz’s June 1, 2014 hospitalization and the closely connected follow-up visits to present the jury with reliable medical context about Ortiz’s condition, treatment, and injuries around the time of the alleged encounter.
- The court declined to admit the other intoxication-related hospitalizations (beyond the June 1 episode and closely related follow-up care) as generalized proof that Ortiz chronically abused alcohol.
- The court rejected defendants’ Rule 404(b) theory to the extent it depended on an inference that because Ortiz had been intoxicated on other occasions, he likely behaved dangerously on June 1 or was less worthy of belief.
- The court rejected the Rule 406 habit theory, concluding that episodes of excessive drinking leading to hospitalization did not constitute the kind of regular, semi-automatic response required for habit evidence.
- The court excluded the additional hospitalization incidents under Rule 403 because any limited probative value was outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice and the risk that the trial would be sidetracked into disputes about unrelated medical episodes.

## Legal Principles

- Evidence of other acts is not admissible to prove a person’s character in order to show action in conformity with that character; Rule 404(b) permits other-acts evidence only for a genuine non-propensity purpose and not as a backdoor to character proof.
- For Rule 404(b), courts examine whether the proponent’s chain of reasoning requires an impermissible propensity inference and whether the proposed non-propensity use is meaningfully connected to a disputed issue at trial.
- Habit evidence under Rule 406 requires a regular, specific, and nearly automatic response to a repeated situation; intermittent conduct that looks like general disposition (such as intemperance) is not habit.
- Under Rule 403, relevant evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, or wasted time.
- In excessive-force and seizure cases, medical records from the incident and closely related treatment are commonly admissible to show the plaintiff’s condition, contemporaneous observations of providers, and the nature and extent of injuries and damages, subject to standard evidentiary limits.

## Conclusion

Ortiz v. City of New York, No. 15CV2206 (DLC) (2017) is a pretrial evidentiary ruling in a § 1983 excessive-force case in which the court allowed the jury to hear medical records tied to Ortiz’s June 1, 2014 hospitalization and related follow-up care, but largely barred defendants from introducing other intoxication-related hospitalizations as improper character evidence that did not qualify as admissible other-acts proof under Rule 404(b) or habit under Rule 406 and that, in any event, posed an unacceptable risk of unfair prejudice and confusion under Rule 403.
