In re Jayson C.
| Decision Date | 07 December 2021 |
| Docket Number | 14795,Dkt. No. D–00235–21,Case No. 2021–01329 |
| Citation | 200 A.D.3d 447,159 N.Y.S.3d 40 |
| Parties | In the MATTER OF JAYSON C., A Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent, Appellant. Presentment agency |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Janet E. Sabel, The Legal Aid Society, New York (John A. Newbery of counsel), for appellant.
Georgia M. Pestana, Corporation Counsel, New York (Deborah E. Wassel of counsel), for presentment agency.
Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Gayle P. Roberts, J.), entered on or about March 15, 2021, which, to the extent appealed from, declined to direct the presentment agency to provide appellant with disclosure required under CPL 245.20(1)(k)(iv), unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted.
In this appeal we are asked to determine whether the Family Court denied appellant equal protection of the laws by concluding that the Family Court Act precluded application of CPL 245.20(1)(k)(iv) ’s disclosure provisions regarding impeachment evidence. We find that the Family Court did deny appellant equal protection of the laws.
Appellant Jayson C. was arrested and charged with two counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and lesser offenses based on his alleged possession of a loaded pistol. The presentment agency named fourteen police officers who were involved in appellant's arrest and investigation and stated its intention to introduce identification testimony from four of those officers. It also stated its intent to introduce the weapon and related evidence which had been recovered by the officers, at a suppression hearing and at trial. The presentment agency stated that it did not intend to introduce at trial any statements appellant made to the officers. The presentment agency also disclosed via a Voluntary Disclosure Form (VDF) that nine of the fourteen officers were involved in at least one pending lawsuit, and it listed the title and index number of each proceeding.
Appellant sought discovery under Family Court Act § 331.2(1)(a)-(h) and, citing the Equal Protection Clause of the federal and state constitutions, discovery under CPL 245.20(1)(a)-(u). In particular, he sought impeachment information under CPL 245.20(1)(k)(iv).
The presentment agency emailed appellant's attorney "disclosure letters" about twelve of the officers. The letters summarized their disciplinary history. Four officers had at least one pending NYPD disciplinary allegation; eleven had at least one substantiated NYPD disciplinary finding; six of the eleven had multiple findings; and three had at least one substantiated CCRB complaint. However, the presentment agency "refused as not properly discoverable upon a Demand to Produce" any items sought under CPL 245.20(1)(a)-(u). Regarding any impeachment information, the presentment agency said that it had served the previously described letters regarding the disciplinary history of the officers, that no other impeachment evidence was known to exist at the time, and if any was discovered, it would be made available to appellant "pursuant to law." The presentment agency stated that appellant was provided all the information required under the Family Court Act article 3.
As part of his omnibus motion, appellant sought an order directing the presentment agency to provide the discovery sought in his Discovery Demand, including impeachment evidence pursuant to CPL 245.20(1)(k)(iv), and argued that it was unconstitutional to deny him those materials solely because he is an alleged juvenile delinquent.
The presentment agency opposed the motion and argued that it provided all discovery required by the Family Court Act, and that CPL article 245 did not apply to juvenile delinquency proceedings. The presentment agency also stated that appellant's motion was moot because it fulfilled its "statutory obligations" by providing the VDF and "Rosario and discovery material."
The Family Court "deemed satisfied" appellant's motion because the presentment agency had provided the relief requested in his motion. The Family Court denied any request for "further witness...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Godfred
... ... ( People v. Castellanos , 72 Misc.3d 371, 148 N.Y.S.3d 652 [Sup. Ct. Bronx County 2021] ). But this court is not prepared to hold that summaries of impeachment material are never permissible and does not find the holding in Matter of Jayson C. , 200 A.D.3d 447, 159 N.Y.S.3d 40 [1st Dep't 2021] ), to be inconsistent with this determination. 4 Clearly a simple list summarizing disciplinary history without details is insufficient to discharge the People's disclosure obligations. The Court finds persuasive the decision in People v ... ...
-
People v. Toussaint
... ... ( C.P.L. 245.20[1][e] ; 245.20[1][k]; People v. Rodriguez , 77 Misc.3d 23, 182 N.Y.S.3d 481 [App. Term, 1st Dep't 2022] ; Matter of Jayson C. , 200 A.D.3d 447, 448-49, 159 N.Y.S.3d 40 [1st Dep't 2021] ; C.P.L. 245.50[1], 245.50[3], 30.30[5] ; People ex rel. Ferro v. Brann , 197 A.D.3d 787, 787-88, 153 N.Y.S.3d 194 [2d Dep't 2021] ). As calculated below, the People have exceeded the 90 days the law allows them to validly state ready ... ...
-
People v. Marin
... ... This material "relates to the subject matter of the case," and is therefore discoverable (see People v. Castellanos , 72 Misc. 3d 371, 378, 148 N.Y.S.3d 652 [Sup. Ct., Bronx County 2021], accord Matter of Jayson C. , 200 A.D.3d 447, 448, 159 N.Y.S.3d 40 [1st Dept. 2021] ). When in the actual 74 Misc.3d 1043 possession of the People, it must be turned over to defense ( CPL 245.20 [1] ).The issue here, however, is whether a COC can be valid where this material is in the possession of the NYPD alone not the ... ...
-
People v. Sherman
... ... 187 N.Y.S.3d 912 Both have held that the statute requires disclosure of records underlying the alleged misconduct and not merely a list or summary of the misconduct. See Matter of Jayson C. , 200 A.D.3d 447, 449, 159 N.Y.S.3d 40 [1st Dep't 2021] [respondent in a juvenile delinquency proceeding appealed trial court's denial of a motion directing the county agency to produce all impeachment materials in connection with a trial on criminal offenses; the appellate court held that the ... ...