Corporation Counsel of City of Buffalo, Application of
| Decision Date | 20 January 1978 |
| Citation | 401 N.Y.S.2d 339,61 A.D.2d 32 |
| Parties | Application of the CORPORATION COUNSEL OF the CITY OF BUFFALO to Inspect Grand Jury Minutes. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Edward C. Cosgrove, Dist. Atty., Buffalo, for appellant (Judith Blake Manzella, Albany of counsel).
Leslie G. Foschio, Corp. Counsel, Buffalo, for respondent (Margaret Anderson, Buffalo, of counsel).
Before MOULE, J. P., and CARDAMONE, SIMONS, HANCOCK, and DENMAN, JJ.
MOULE, Justice Presiding.
This appeal presents the question whether Special Term abused its discretion in granting an order permitting the Corporation Counsel of the City of Buffalo to examine Grand Jury minutes of the testimony of seven Buffalo police officers.
This application was brought by service of an order to show cause and supporting affidavit upon the Erie County District Attorney on November 3, 1977. The Corporation Counsel sought to examine minutes of the testimony of Buffalo Police Officer Robert Grisanti which had been given on July 29, 1977 before the Special Erie County Grand Jury investigating the death of Richard Long. He also requested an examination of the minutes of testimony given before the same Grand Jury on unknown dates by Police Officers Leonard Socha, Lawrence Pierce, Joseph Riga, Charles Williams, Peter Brunetto, Robert Chella and "any and all other members of the Buffalo Police Department." 1
In the supporting affidavit it was asserted that a duty of the Corporation Counsel is to prepare and prosecute departmental charges against members of the Buffalo Police Department in appropriate cases; that subsequent to testifying before the Grand Jury, Police Officer Robert Grisanti was indicted on two counts each of first degree perjury and first degree criminal contempt and, upon his indictment, was suspended by the police commissioner; and that to prepare departmental charges fairly and properly against Officer Grisanti, it was essential and necessary that the testimony upon which his indictment was founded be inspected. It was further asserted that, upon information and belief, the Grand Jury testimony of the other six named members of the Buffalo Police Department concerned activities performed by them in violation of departmental rules and regulations, and that "in order to ascertain what, if any, rules and regulations were violated by the above-named police officers and in order to fully and fairly draw possible departmental charges against any of those police officers, and any others currently unknown to the Deponent, who may have testified before the Grand Jury, it is necessary and essential that their testimony be inspected by the Deponent."
The District Attorney opposed the Corporation Counsel's application. 2 Special Term nevertheless granted it as to the examination of the Grand Jury minutes of the testimony of the seven named police officers on November 10, 1977. In granting this application, the court noted that the District Attorney had informed it that except for Officer Grisanti, none of the named officers had rendered any testimony to be used in the criminal case arising from Richard Long's death and it was not expected that they would be called as witnesses in that prosecution. The court allowed disclosure of the Grand Jury testimony of Officer Grisanti when it was shown that a copy of the minutes of his testimony had been released to his attorney in connection with the perjury and contempt charges against him. The District Attorney contends on this appeal that it was improper for Special Term to permit inspection of the Grand Jury testimony of Officer Grisanti and the other six named police officers.
Section 190.25 (subd. 4) of the Criminal Procedure Law sets forth the general rule that Grand Jury proceedings are secret. An exception is recognized where a written court order authorizes disclosure of the nature or substance of Grand Jury testimony (CPL, § 190.25 (4); Judiciary Law, § 325). It is well settled that the determination of the question whether disclosure should be permitted rests in the court's discretion and that in exercising this discretion, the court must balance the competing interests involved, the public interest in disclosure against that in secrecy (People v. DiNapoli, 27 N.Y.2d 229, 234, 316 N.Y.S.2d 622, 624, 265 N.E.2d 449, 451; Matter of City of Buffalo, 57 A.D.2d 47, 49, 394 N.Y.S.2d 919, 921; Matter of Scotti, 53 A.D.2d 282, 287, 385 N.Y.S.2d 659, 662).
In its decision, Special Term found that the public interest in having departmental charges affecting police officers tried thoroughly and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Carey
...for access to minutes of a grand jury investigation into “no-show” municipal jobs]; and Matter of Corporation Counsel of City of Buffalo [Cosgrove], 61 A.D.2d 32, 401 N.Y.S.2d 339 [4th Dept.1978] [court denied request by city for disclosure of grand jury testimony of police officers, includ......
-
Chiapperini v. Gander Mountain Co.
...v. Di Napoli, 27 N.Y.2d 229, 235, 316 N.Y.S.2d 622, 265 N.E.2d 449 (1970). See also Application of Corp. Counsel of City of Buffalo, 61 A.D.2d 32, 35–36, 401 N.Y.S.2d 339 (4th Dept.1978). In the case at bar, Plaintiffs have not made the requisite compelling and particularized for the entire......
-
District Attorney of Suffolk County, Matter of
...at p. 51, 394 N.Y.S.2d 919; accord Matter of Carey [Fischer ], 68 A.D.2d 220, 416 N.Y.S.2d 904; Matter of Corporation Counsel of City of Buffalo [Cosgrove ], 61 A.D.2d 32, 401 N.Y.S.2d 339). Off center too is the District Attorney's further theory that a standard of mere "relevance" should ......
-
FOJP Service Corp., Application of
...DiNapoli, supra; Matter of District Attorney of Suffolk County, supra; Matter of City of Buffalo, supra; Application of Corporation Counsel of Buffalo, 61 A.D.2d 32, 401 N.Y.S.2d 339; Dow Chemical Co. v. Texas Eastern Transmission Corp. 58 A.D.2d 628, 395 N.Y.S.2d What is persuasive here an......