People v. J.K.

• Decision Date: 22 October 1987
• Citation: 520 N.Y.S.2d 986,137 Misc.2d 394
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, v. J.K., Defendant.
• Court: New York County Court

Page 986

520 N.Y.S.2d 986

137 Misc.2d 394

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, v. J.K., Defendant.

Suffolk County Court Trial Term.

Oct. 22, 1987.

Stangler, Edelman & Bender, Carle Place, for defendant, J.K., in Criminal Action.

James T. Gucciardo, Huntington, for plaintiffs in B.C. v. J.K.

Patrick Henry, Dist. Atty., Hauppauge, N.Y.

Jones, Hirsch, Connors & Bull, New York City, for defendant J.K. in B.C. v. J.K.

MARQUETTE L. FLOYD, Acting Judge.

The plaintiffs in a civil action entitled B.C. v. J.K., move for an order of production and examination of records of the County Court and the Suffolk County District Attorney's office, relating to the matter of People v. J.K. The defendant, J.K., was previously the subject of a criminal investigation in Suffolk County, and the complaint in the civil action demands damages allegedly arising from the same incidents. The criminal prosecution resulted in a youthful offender adjudication. The plaintiffs allege that in order to properly prosecute the civil action, B.C. v. J.K., it will be necessary to obtain the records of the County Court, including the probation report, and the records of the District Attorney. The defendant, J.K., opposes this motion on the ground that the records relating to the youthful offender adjudication and the probation report are confidential pursuant to CPL § 720.35 and § 390.50, respectively.

CPL § 720.35(2) provides in part:

Except where specifically required or permitted by statute or upon specific authorization of the court, all official records and papers, whether on file with the court, a police agency or the division of criminal justices services, relating to a case involving a youth who has been adjudicated a youthful offender, are confidential and may not be made available to any person or public or private agency....

The Court notes that the language "all official records and papers" should be read to give broad protection to all records concerning a youthful offender. In this case, the plaintiffs are requesting not only the records of County Court, but also the records of the Suffolk County District Attorney. Generally, a court has the inherent power to control its own records. Occasionally a court's power will be extended over the records of another agency by the Legislature. (See Dorothy D. v. New York City Probation Department, 49 N.Y.2d 212, 424 N.Y.S.2d 890, 400 N.E.2d 1342.) Although CPL § 720.35 provides broad protection, it does not provide a clear directive giving this Court the power to order the District Attorney to open its file. In the absence of specific statutory authority extending this Court's power, it only has the power to control its own records, and not the records of the District Attorney.

This Court is aware that in Royal Globe Ins. Co. v. Mottola, 89 A.D.2d 907, 453 N.Y.S.2d 723, it was held that the term "the court" in CPL § 720.35(2), refers to the court which rendered the youthful offender adjudication. However, Mottola is distinguishable since it was concerned with solely the plea minutes within the County Court's records, and it was based upon the court's inherent power to control its own records. The court in Mottola did not interpret the language of CPL § 720.35 as extending the power of the court where the youthful offender adjudication occurred, to control the records of another agency. Therefore, that part of the plaintiffs' motion requesting the records of the Suffolk County District Attorney is denied for want of authority. This ruling does not preclude the plaintiffs from seeking the records of the District Attorney in the appropriate court. (See D. Siegel, New York Practice § 382.)

The balance of this decision will concern only the plaintiffs' request for the records of County Court. The Court further notes that a probation report, within the County Court's file, will be treated with the same standard of confidentiality, as all other papers within the youthful offender file. (See CPL § 390.50.) Accordingly, if the strict confidentiality of the court records is to be pierced, it must be by either a statute specifically requiring or permitting the use of the records, or "upon specific authorization of the court." (CPL 720.35[2].) Since the plaintiffs have offered no applicable statutory authority in support of their request, the application for production and examination of J.K.'s youthful offender records must be based upon "specific authorization of the court."

In determining whether to make available youthful offender records, the Court is mindful of the purpose of the Youthful Offender law. "[T]he essential purpose of the youthful offender process remains unaltered: to enable a youthful wrongdoer to avoid a conviction for a 'crime'." (People v. Caruso, 92 Misc.2d 559, 560, 400 N.Y.S.2d 686.) The primary advantage of youthful offender treatment "is the avoidance of the stigma and practical consequences which accompany a criminal conviction." (People v. Cook, 37 N.Y.2d 591, 595, 376 N.Y.S.2d 110, 338 N.E.2d 619.) The provisions of the Criminal Procedure Law dealing with youthful offenders, "emanate from a legislative desire not to stigmatize youths between the ages of 16 and 19 with criminal records triggered by hasty or thoughtless acts...." (People v. Drayton, 39 N.Y.2d 580, 584, 385 N.Y.S.2d 1, 350 N.E.2d 377.)

This Court has considered several cases that, although not precisely on point, are helpful in determining when a court should authorize the examination of the youthful offender records. In Cacchioli v. Hoberman, 31 N.Y.2d 287, 338 N.Y.S.2d 865, 291 N.E.2d 117, Judge Jasen in his concurring opinion, examined the Youthful Offender statute, in the context of the right of the New York City Transit Authority Police Department to inquire into the youthful offender record of a police trainee. Judge Jasen stated, "It would be unreasonable to interpret ... [the statute] as foreclosing a governmental agency, such as the Authority, from inquiring into an applicant's prior misconduct in evaluating his fitness for employment as a police officer. The public interest requires that law enforcement officers be of impeccable character and integrity, and in order to properly determine an applicant's character and integrity, the department should know of any prior misconduct." (Cacchioli v. Hoberman, 31 N.Y.2d 287, 294, 338 N.Y.S.2d 865, 291 N.E.2d 117 [emphasis added].) Judge Jasen's opinion focuses on public interest, in cases involving sensitive public positions, as permitting inquiry into the misconduct underlying prior youthful offender adjudication.

In People v. Gallina, 110 A.D.2d 847, 848, 488 N.Y.S.2d 249, the court considered the issue of whether a photograph of a youth, "taken during a previous arrest that had resulted in a youthful offender adjudication may be placed in police investigation files of photographs that are viewed by crime victims to identify potential suspects." The court held that the display of such photographs to witnesses within the confines of the agency, that is, for internal use within the police department, was permissible. However, the court held it was an error to release the youth's photograph for external use, without a court order. The court also compared CPL § 720.35 to CPL § 160.50, which governs the termination of a criminal action in favor of the accused, and found a similarity between the two sections. The court stated, "both provisions were 'intended to remove the "stigma" of the alleged criminal activity and its adverse affect on the accused, thereby affording protection to such accused in the pursuit of employment, education, professional licensing and insurance opportunities.' " (People v. Gallina, 110 A.D.2d 847, 848, 488 N.Y.S.2d 249 [quoting People v. Anderson, 97 Misc.2d 408, 412, 411 N.Y.S.2d 830].)

The court, in People v. Joseph W.F., 111 Misc.2d 752, 444 N.Y.S.2d 1007, was confronted with a situation in which the complainant, in a prosecution for assault in the third degree, moved pursuant to CPL § 160.50, to unseal all the records relating to the defendant's arrest and prosecution. The complainant wanted the...