Matter of Gutkaiss v. People
| Decision Date | 13 March 2008 |
| Docket Number | 500687. |
| Parties | In the Matter of TIMOTHY GUTKAISS, Appellant, v. THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Appeal from an order of the County Court of Washington County (Berke, J.), entered May 19, 2006, which denied petitioner's application pursuant to CPL 390.50 for a copy of his presentence investigation report.
Petitioner applied for a copy of the presentence investigation report prepared in connection with the criminal action against him in order to prepare for an appearance before the Board of Parole. County Court denied his application and petitioner now appeals.
We reverse. A presentence report "is confidential and may not be made available to any person ... except where specifically required or permitted by statute or upon specific authorization of the court" (CPL 390.50 [1]). Where no statutory authority is cited, a petitioner may be entitled to disclosure of the report "upon a proper factual showing for the need thereof" (Matter of Shader v People, 233 AD2d 717, 717 [1996]; accord Matter of Kilgore v People, 274 AD2d 636, 636 [2000]; Matter of Hoyle v People, 274 AD2d 633, 633 [2000]; see Matter of Blanche v People, 193 AD2d 991, 992 [1993]). Here, as petitioner had notice of an impending hearing before the Board and his presentence report was one of the factors to be considered by the Board in determining his application for release (see Executive Law § 259-i [1] [a]; [2] [c]), we find that petitioner made a proper factual showing entitling him to a copy of the report after in camera review and such redaction as County Court may find appropriate (see Matter of Shader v People, 233 AD2d at 717).
Mercure, J.P., Peters, Spain and Malone Jr., JJ., concur.
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs, and matter remitted to the County Court of Washington County for further proceedings not inconsistent with this Court's decision.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Fishel
...is appropriate (see Matter of Rogner v. People, 81 A.D.3d 1092, 1092–1093, 916 N.Y.S.2d 531 [2011] ; Matter of Gutkaiss v. People, 49 A.D.3d 979, 980, 853 N.Y.S.2d 677 [2008] ; Matter of Shader v. People, 233 A.D.2d at 717, 650 N.Y.S.2d 350 ). That is, under the statute, a defendant cannot ......
-
Rogner v. People
...Executive Law § 259-i[1][a]; [2][c][A]; Matter of Davis v. People, 52 A.D.3d 997, 860 N.Y.S.2d 644 [2008]; Matter of Gutkaiss v. People, 49 A.D.3d 979, 979-980, 853 N.Y.S.2d 677 [2008] ). Contrary to the conclusion reached by County Court, our review of the Board's decision convinces us tha......
-
People v. Sessoms
...may be entitled to disclosure of the report upon a proper factual showing for the need thereof" ( Matter of Gutkaiss v. People, 49 A.D.3d 979, 979, 853 N.Y.S.2d 677 [2008] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; see People v. Fishel, 128 A.D.3d 15, 19, 6 N.Y.S.3d 312 [2015] ; Matte......
-
People v. Parker
... ... , lv denied 82 NY2d 756 [1993]) and were, in any event, essentially repeated to the Baltimore County police lieutenant who interviewed him (see Matter of Vanderbilt [Rosner—Hickey], 57 NY2d 66, 74 [1982]; People v Weeks, 15 AD3d 845, 846 [2005], lv denied 4 NY3d 892 [2005]). Moreover, defendant's ... ...