Hoovler v. De Rosa
| Decision Date | 19 October 2016 |
| Citation | 2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 06830,143 A.D.3d 897,40 N.Y.S.3d 147 |
| Parties | In the Matter of David M. HOOVLER, etc., petitioner, v. Nicholas DE ROSA, etc., et al., respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
143 A.D.3d 897
40 N.Y.S.3d 147
2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 06830
In the Matter of David M. HOOVLER, etc., petitioner,
v.
Nicholas DE ROSA, etc., et al., respondents.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Oct. 19, 2016.
David M. Hoovler, District Attorney, Goshen, NY (Andrew R. Kass of counsel), petitioner pro se.
Ostrer & Associates, P.C., Chester, NY (Benjamin Ostrer and Marissa Tuohy of counsel), for respondent Devin Giordano.
RANDALL T. ENG, P.J., SHERI S. ROMAN, COLLEEN D. DUFFY, and VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ.
Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of prohibition to prohibit the respondent Nicholas De Rosa, a Judge of the County Court, Orange County, from enforcing his order dated July 1, 2016, granting the application of the respondent Devin Giordano, a defendant in a criminal action
entitled People v. Giordano, pending in the County Court, Orange County, under Indictment No. 2014–526, to direct the People to make available to him the full names corresponding to initials that appear on certain laboratory reports produced in that criminal action. Pursuant to a temporary restraining order contained in an order to show cause of this Court dated July 6, 2016, enforcement of the order dated July 1, 2016, and the trial in the criminal action were stayed pending determination of this proceeding.
ADJUDGED that the petition is granted, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the respondent Nicholas De Rosa, a Judge of the County Court, Orange County, is prohibited from enforcing his order dated July 1, 2016.
The respondent Devin Giordano (hereinafter the defendant) is a defendant in a criminal action entitled People v. Giordano, pending in the County Court, Orange County, under Indictment No. 2014–526. The defendant was charged with, inter alia, murder in the second degree, burglary in the first and second degrees, and arson in the second and third degrees. In that action, the People produced laboratory reports containing the results of DNA tests performed by the New York State Police Forensic Investigation Center (hereinafter the FIC).
In April 2016, counsel for the New York State Police notified the People about the results of an internal investigation concerning 15 forensic scientists employed by the FIC, who were accused of cheating on an examination for certification to use a DNA software program known as TrueAllele. Although TrueAllele was not used in the defendant's case, the People sent the defendant's attorney a copy of the letter they received from counsel for the New York State Police, along with an executive summary of the internal investigation.
The defendant's attorney subsequently requested that the People disclose the names corresponding to initials that appear on the laboratory reports produced in the defendant's criminal action. In response, the People forwarded an email from the FIC identifying two staff members who were implicated in the cheating scandal and whose initials appear on the laboratory reports. The People otherwise declined to respond to the defendant's request. At a court conference held on June 22, 2016, the defendant's attorney reiterated his request for the names of all persons whose initials appear on the laboratory reports on the ground that such information constituted discoverable material pursuant to Brady v. Maryland , 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215. The People opposed the request, arguing that the information sought did not constitute Brady material and that there was no statutory right entitling the defendant to this discovery.
Following further submissions by the parties, the respondent Nicholas De Rosa, a Judge of the County Court, Orange...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Doorley v. Castro
...acted in excess of his authority and that a writ of prohibition is the appropriate remedy (see e.g. Matter of Hoovler v. DeRosa, 143 A.D.3d 897, 900–901, 40 N.Y.S.3d 147 [2d Dept. 2016] ; Brown, 296 A.D.2d at 406, 745 N.Y.S.2d 54 ). We therefore grant the amended petition and grant judgment......
-
People v. Easley, 2013–07329
...or control of the People, but of OCME (see People v. Spruill, 164 A.D.3d 1270, 1273–1274, 82 N.Y.S.3d 520 ; Matter of Hoovler v. De Rosa, 143 A.D.3d 897, 900, 40 N.Y.S.3d 147 ). The defendant's contention that the failure to disclose these materials violated his right to confront witnesses ......
- Frimer v. Frimer
-
Shank v. Shank
...this case, we find no basis to disturb the order of protection (see Family Ct. Act § 842 ; Matter 63 N.Y.S.3d 721of Frimer v. Frimer, 143 A.D.3d at 897, 39 N.Y.S.3d 226). Contrary to the appellant's contention, the evidence demonstrated that the order of protection in favor of the petitione......