Dorothy D. v. New York City Probation Dept.
| Decision Date | 10 January 1980 |
| Parties | , 400 N.E.2d 1342 In the Matter of DOROTHY D. (Anonymous), Respondent, v. NEW YORK CITY PROBATION DEPARTMENT, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
The issue in this case is whether the Family Court should have expunged from its records a juvenile delinquency petition brought against a blameless child by a neighbor. We agree with the Appellate Division that, in the circumstances of this case, the court's failure to do so was an abuse of discretion as a matter of law.
This matter arose when the child's mother filed a criminal complaint against a neighbor. In response the neighbor charged that the child, then aged 12, was a juvenile delinquent. At the intake level of Family Court, before the juvenile delinquency petition was formally filed, the neighbor offered to withdraw the petition if the criminal complaint was withdrawn. The mother refused and the petition was filed; however, when the child's mother later withdrew the complaint, the petition lodged by the neighbor was withdrawn. The child through her Law Guardian then moved in Family Court for an order expunging from the court records all mention of her identity or the incident and for the sealing and separate filing of the petition.
The Family Court denied the motion, but granted permission to renew when the child reached the age of 16. Grounds for denial of the motion were: (1) the fact that a brother of the child had been previously arrested; (2) the existence of certain information in the probation folder about the parent; and (3) the need for complete information about the family in the event of a future adjudication.
The Law Guardian argues that the harm generated by a court record may penalize the innocent by thwarting their career ambitions. It is contended that employers generally regard a record of complaint as a judgment of guilt with the result that applicants with court records are often automatically disqualified.
That the very existence of such records, despite provisions for confidentiality, may constitute a substantial impediment to entry into institutions of higher learning, government or private employment, the armed services, or the professions, cannot be seriously questioned. For this reason it would be antithetical to the purpose of the Family Court Act to maintain records which would not benefit society and would result in bringing unwarranted discrimination to a child's future (Matter of Richard S. v. City of New York, 32 N.Y.2d 592, 595-596, 347 N.Y.S.2d 54, 56, 300 N.E.2d 426, 427).
The inherent power of courts to control the records of their own proceedings has long been recognized in New York (Barker v. Binninger, 14 N.Y. 270, 278) and this power does not depend on statutory grant but exists independently and "inheres in the very constitution of the court" (Vanderbilt v. Schreyer, 81 N.Y. 646, 648). This power has been exercised to seal court records so as to preserve confidentiality in sensitive proceedings (Matter of Richard S. v. City of New York, supra ) as well as to expunge records relating to prosecutions where there was no conviction (Matter of Henry v. Looney, 65 Misc.2d 759, 762-763, 317 N.Y.S.2d 848, 851-852).
Our court has made clear, and the Legislature has implicitly...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Vance A., Matter of
...34 L.Ed.2d 37 as to a witness' fear of self-incrimination despite use and derivative-use immunity.14 See Matter of Dorothy D., 49 N.Y.2d 212, 215, 424 N.Y.S.2d 890, 400 N.E.2d 1342; Haynes v. Karasik, 47 N.Y.2d 659, 664, 419 N.Y.S.2d 942, 393 N.E.2d 1015 as to court's power to seal its reco......
-
Coopersmith v. Gold
...N.E.2d 873 (1990) (sealed minutes of first inquest on vacatur of default on damage phase of trial); see Matter of Dorothy D., 49 N.Y.2d 212, 424 N.Y.S.2d 890, 400 N.E.2d 1342 (1980) (recognizing rule); Matter of Richard S. v. City of New York, 32 N.Y.2d 592, 596, 347 N.Y.S.2d 54, 300 N.E.2d......
-
Gabrelian v. Gabrelian
... ... statutory authority or some contractual obligation (City of Buffalo v. Clement Co., 28 N.Y.2d 241, 262-263, 321 ... Co. v. New York Yankees, 102 A.D.2d 851, 852, 476 N.Y.S.2d 628; Taks v ... is the power to seal and expunge records (Matter of Dorothy ... Page 920 ... D., 49 N.Y.2d 212, 215, 424 N.Y.S.2d ... ...
-
Harvey v. Hynes
...Matter of Crain Comm. v. Hughes, 74 N.Y.2d 626, 628, 541 N.Y.S.2d 971, 539 N.E.2d 1099; Matter of Dorothy D. v. New York City Probation Dept., 49 N.Y.2d 212, 215, 424 N.Y.S.2d 890, 400 N.E.2d 1342; Rich-Haven Motor Sales v. National Bank of New York City, 163 A.D.2d 288, 558 N.Y.S.2d 91). B......