People v. Hurd
| Decision Date | 30 January 1986 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York v. Wilson HURD, Defendant. |
| Court | New York City Court |
Wilson S. Hurd, pro se.
Police Dept. of the City of New York, Legal Bureau, New York City, (Martin Schiff, of counsel), for respondent.
This application appears to pose a matter of first impression. Where a named criminal defendant has successfully moved for an order to seal the official records of a case pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law section 160.50, does that defendant have a right to petition the court which issued the order to compel compliance with that order?
It is clear from reading CPL 160.50 and the caselaw that plaintiffs in related civil actions, prosecutorial bodies, and even courts of concurrent jurisdiction may not have a criminal matter opened once it is sealed pursuant to that section. (Matter of Hynes v. Karassik, 47 N.Y.2d 659, 419 N.Y.S.2d 942, 393 N.E.2d 1015 People v. Joseph W.F., 111 Misc.2d 752, 444 N.Y.S.2d 1007 People v. Blount, 116 Misc.2d 975, 456 N.Y.S.2d 970 Matter of Mendez ex rel. Bennett v. Sharpe, 93 Misc.2d 776, 403 N.Y.S.2d 868 [1978].)
From the limited papers before this court, the facts appear to be as follows. Sometime in 1984, Mr. Hurd was arrested for an unknown crime (that is, unknown to this court). On January 31, 1985 the criminal proceeding (Docket Number 4N077911) was dismissed for failure to prosecute. The record of that matter was ordered to be sealed pursuant to CPL 160.50. The sealing order became effective on April 1, 1985.
At a later date, certain public officials instituted a forfeiture action against Mr. Hurd pursuant to CPLR 1311. It is alleged that documents from the sealed criminal matter are to be used in the forfeiture case in violation of the sealing order.
A sealing order is not to be taken lightly. The purpose of such an order is that upon favorable termination of a criminal proceeding, "the arrest and prosecution shall be deemed a nullity and the accused shall be restored, in contemplation of law, to the status he occupied before the arrest and prosecution" (CPL 160.60).
Mr. Hurd has asked this court to uphold the sealing order by unsealing the record, restoring the criminal case to the calendar and holding those who violated that sealing order in contempt.
Mr. Hurd's request contains a fatal flaw. The express language of CPL 160.60 denies this court the authority to unseal records. While the Criminal Court may issue a sealing order, only a superior court may order the unsealing of that record.
When the legislature has seen fit to permit the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sanders v. Simonovic
...But the cases cited by Plaintiff discuss only the issue of sealing records or are otherwise inapplicable. See People v. Hurd, 498 N.Y.S.2d 94, 95 (Crim. Ct. 1986) (discussing whether a criminal court may order the unsealing of records under N.Y. Crim. P. L. § 160.60); People v. White, 436 N......
-
People v. John F.
...youthful offender records, would defeat the purpose and intent of the Youthful Offender statute." In People v. Hurd, 130 Misc.2d 949, 950, 498 N.Y.S.2d 94, 95 (Crim.Ct.N.Y.County 1986) Judge Lowe held that "A sealing order is not to be taken lightly. The purpose of such an order is that upo......
-
M.S. Hous. Assoc. v. Williams, 2006 NY Slip Op 52105(U) (N.Y. Civ. Ct. 11/3/2006), 251390/06.
...power to unseal criminal records. Only a superior court can entertain such an application (see People of the State of New York v. Wilson Hurd, 130 Misc 2d 949, 498 NYS2d 94 [NYC Crim Ct 1986]). The civil court is not a superior court. Additionally, pursuant to CPL 160.50, the petitioner is ......