Katherine B. v. Cataldo

• Decision Date: 06 July 2005
• Citation: Katherine B. v. Cataldo, 833 N.E.2d 698, 5 N.Y.3d 196, 800 N.Y.S.2d 363 (N.Y. 2005)
• Parties: In the Matter of KATHERINE B. et al., Appellants, v. John CATALDO et al., Respondents.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Page 698

833 N.E.2d 698

5 N.Y.3d 196

In the Matter of KATHERINE B. et al., Appellants, v. John CATALDO et al., Respondents.

Court of Appeals of New York.

July 6, 2005.

Law Offices of Stephen W. Edwards, Brooklyn (Stephen W. Edwards of counsel), for appellants.

Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney, New York City (Larry A. Glasser, Mark Dwyer and Sean J. Sullivan of counsel), for respondents.

Legal Aid Society, New York City (Steven Banks and Robert C. Newman of counsel), amicus curiae.

OPINION OF THE COURT

READ, J.

This appeal calls upon us to decide whether CPL 160.50(1)(d) (ii) authorizes a superior court to make sealed records available to a prosecutor for purposes of making sentencing recommendations. In light of the limitations placed by the Legislature on unsealing, we conclude that it does not.

I.

On March 26, 2003, the four petitioners participated in a political demonstration near the intersection of Fifth Avenue and 47th Street in Manhattan, staged at the height of the morning rush hour. Wearing matching shirts with identical, preprinted signs and dabbed with fake blood, 11 demonstrators lay down across Fifth Avenue, their arms yoked together by an elaborate system of custom-cut plastic piping, metal chains, carabiners and handcuffs. A demonstrator at one end of this human chain padlocked his free hand around a fixed garbage can on the sidewalk. The demonstrator at the other end was in the midst of doing the same thing when police arrived. Other demonstrators stood in the street, holding up stop signs in the face of oncoming traffic. Demonstrators also positioned a "bulldozer" that they had fabricated out of wood and metal in the center lanes of Fifth Avenue, and one of the petitioners padlocked herself to it.

This eye-catching scene, orchestrated to take New York City officials by surprise, effectively shut down Fifth Avenue, creating massive traffic disruptions in midtown Manhattan and diverting large numbers of police and other public safety officials from their regular duties. In order to clear the street, emergency services officers were forced to use electric saws to cut through the plastic piping linking the human chain.

Nearly a year later, on March 22, 2004, and following a weeklong trial in Criminal Court, a jury found each of the four petitioners and 12 fellow demonstrators guilty of one count of obstructing governmental administration in the second degree (Penal Law § 195.05) and two counts of disorderly conduct (Penal Law § 240.20[5], [6]). Obstructing governmental administration in the second degree is a class A misdemeanor punishable by a sentence of imprisonment not to exceed one year; disorderly conduct is a violation punishable by a sentence of imprisonment not to exceed 15 days.

Criminal Court adjourned sentencing and directed the People to supply it with updated criminal histories or "rap sheets" in support of their sentencing recommendations. To comply with Criminal Court's instruction, the assistant district attorney conducted a computer search, which revealed numerous docket numbers for prior criminal cases involving petitioners. The search results, however, included no factual information relating to these cases, and, in fact, indicated that the records were sealed. Accordingly, on March 29 and March 31, 2004, the People moved ex parte in Supreme Court pursuant to CPL 160.50(1)(d)(ii) and 160.55(1)(d)(ii) to unseal records corresponding to docket or arrest numbers associated with petitioners.

The People advised Supreme Court that justice required the unsealing of petitioners' records because "[t]he details of these matters, and their dispositions, [were] pertinent and relevant information for the [Criminal] Court to consider in determining an appropriate sentence," citing CPL 380.50(1) and 390.40(1). Supreme Court granted the People's motions and issued the unsealing orders. The unsealed records related to convictions for violations, adjournments in contemplation of dismissal and procedural dismissals.

On April 9, 2004, the People submitted sentencing recommendations to Criminal Court for petitioners as well as for the 12 other convicted demonstrators. The People informed the court of more than 20 prior acts of civil disobedience undertaken by petitioners, based principally on allegations taken from complaints filed with Criminal Court at petitioners' arraignments in the unsealed cases. The People argued that, in light of these past experiences, petitioners certainly knew that their actions on March 26, 2003 would disrupt and affect thousands of people and force the police department to expend substantial resources to apprehend them. Accordingly, the People differentiated between petitioners and other convicted demonstrators, recommending an unspecified period of incarceration as part of petitioners' sentences.

By order to show cause, petitioners on April 28, 2004 asked Supreme Court to vacate its unsealing orders, to reseal petitioners' records, and to preclude the People from using information obtained from the sealed records in the pending Criminal Court sentencing. On May 14, 2004, Supreme Court issued a written decision and order rejecting petitioners' contention that CPL 160.50(1)(d)(ii) and 160.55(1)(d)(ii) authorize unsealing only "for investigatory purposes rather than to assist a court in a sentencing proceeding upon a subsequent conviction." Supreme Court cautioned, however, that "[i]t remains the domain of the sentencing judge ... to ascertain... whether the factual allegations obtained from the unsealed dockets meet[] the test of reliability and accuracy necessary to merit any consideration by that court."

On May 23, 2004, petitioners filed a CPLR article 78 petition¹ in the Appellate Division, which the Court dismissed on September 21, 2004 "without prejudice to raising the same or similar arguments on direct appeal from a judgment of conviction" (10 A.D.3d 544, 781 N.Y.S.2d 738 [1st Dept.2004]). We subsequently granted leave to appeal,² and now reverse.

II.

As relevant to this appeal, CPL 160.50³ provides that upon termination of a criminal action or proceeding in favor of the accused, "the record of such action or proceeding shall be sealed" by the clerk of the court "unless the court has directed otherwise" in the interests of justice upon motion of the district attorney or on its own motion and for reasons stated on the record (CPL 160.50[1]).⁴ The sealing covers "all official records and papers, including judgments and orders of a court but not including published court decisions or opinions or records and briefs on appeal, relating to the arrest or prosecution, including all duplicates and copies thereof, on file with the division of criminal justice services, any court, police agency, or prosecutor's office" (CPL 160.50[1][c]; see Matter of Harper v. Angiolillo, 89 N.Y.2d 761, 658 N.Y.S.2d 229, 680 N.E.2d 602 [1997] [there are no bright-line rules defining those items qualifying as "official records and papers"]).

"The sealing requirement was designed to lessen the adverse consequences of unsuccessful criminal prosecutions by limiting access to official records and papers in criminal proceedings which terminate in favor of the accused" (Harper, 89 N.Y.2d at 766, 658 N.Y.S.2d 229, 680 N.E.2d 602). "That detriment to one's reputation and employment prospects often flows from merely having been subjected to criminal process has long been recognized as a serious and unfortunate by-product of even unsuccessful criminal prosecutions. The statute's design is to lessen such consequences" (Hynes, 47 N.Y.2d at 662, 419 N.Y.S.2d 942, 393 N.E.2d 1015 [citations omitted]).

Consistent with this design and the "plain intendment of the statutory scheme," the "general proscription against releasing sealed records and materials [is] subject only to a few narrow exceptions" (Matter of Joseph M. [New York City Bd. of Educ.], 82 N.Y.2d 128, 134, 603 N.Y.S.2d 804, 623 N.E.2d 1154 [1993] [confining inherent judicial authority to unseal records, which exists in the absence of statutory authorization and was recognized in Hynes and endorsed in Matter of Dondi, 63 N.Y.2d 331, 482 N.Y.S.2d 431, 472 N.E.2d 281 [1984], to Appellate Division's responsibility for discipline of attorneys pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90]; see also Harper, 89 N.Y.2d at 767, 658 N.Y.S.2d 229, 680 N.E.2d 602 ["CPL 160.50 balances the rights of a former defendant to restrict and obtain access to official records and papers in favorably terminated criminal proceedings, against the interests of various law enforcement agencies and representatives in the same materials," and "strikes the balance by requiring sealing in a wide variety of contexts and providing for the disclosure of sealed files in only limited circumstances"]).

Accordingly, in addition to the accused or his designated agent, a court may make sealed records available only to a "prosecutor⁵ in any proceeding in which the accused" has moved for an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal in a case involving marijuana charges below felony grade (CPL 160.50[1][d][i]), a benefit that the accused may obtain only once (see CPL 170.56, 210.46); to "a law enforcement agency upon ex parte motion in any superior court, if such agency demonstrates to the satisfaction of the court that justice requires" disclosure (CPL 160.50[1][d][ii]); to state or local gun licensing agencies when the accused applies for a gun license (CPL 160.50[1][d][iii]); to the New York State Division of Parole when the arrest occurred while the accused was under parole supervision (CPL 160.50[1][d][iv]); to the prospective employer of a police officer or peace officer, provided that the applicant shall be furnished a copy of all records obtained and given an opportunity to explain (CPL 160.50[1][d][v]); and to any probation department responsible for the accused's supervision when the arrest occurred (CPL 160.50[1][d][vi]).

These six statutory exceptions...