People v. John F.

• Decision Date: 27 October 1997
• Citation: 174 Misc.2d 540,665 N.Y.S.2d 822
• Parties: , 1997 N.Y. Slip Op. 97,593 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v. JOHN F., Defendant. The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v. STEVEN H., Defendant.
• Court: New York District Court

Page 822

665 N.Y.S.2d 822

174 Misc.2d 540, 1997 N.Y. Slip Op. 97,593

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v. JOHN F., Defendant.

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v. STEVEN H., Defendant.

District Court, Nassau County First District.

Oct. 27, 1997.

Devitt, Spellman, Barrett, Callahan, Leyden & Kenney, L.L.P. (William J. Barrett, of counsel), for State Farm Fire and Casualty Insurance Company.

Purcell & Ingrao, P.C. (Anthony Marino, of counsel), for John F., defendant.

Kelly, Rode & Kelly, L.L.P. (Michael M. Burkart, of counsel), for Steven H., defendant.

Denis E. Dillon, District Attorney of Nassau County, for plaintiff.

IRA J. RAAB, Judge.

"To unseal or not to unseal," the criminal court files of Youthful Offenders, "that is the question." Applicant homeowners insurance carrier of the youths may not obtain certificates of disposition and plea allocution minutes from sealed criminal files for use in avoiding defense and indemnification in a civil action against the insured youths for negligent and willful assault and battery, brought by the criminal action complainant. This is a matter of first impression.

In the within criminal proceedings, defendants John F. and Steven H. were charged with criminal offenses relating to an incident that occurred on July 2, 1994, allegedly causing injury to the complainant. The criminal actions were disposed of by Youthful Offender findings pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law section 720.20(3). The court clerk duly sealed the court files pursuant to CPL § 720.35(2).

In the underlying Supreme Court civil action, the criminal court complainant, Joseph Pierse, alleges that on July 2, 1994, defendants John and Steven, and a third individual, Kevin Terwilliger, "did negligently or willfully assault, batter and injure plaintiff by repeatedly striking, punching and kicking (him) in an (sic) about his face and head."

State Farm Fire and Casualty Insurance Company (hereinafter "State Farm") issued a homeowners insurance policy and an umbrella policy, which included John and Steven, respectively, as covered persons. The policies covered accidental incidents, but not intentional acts.

Pursuant to said policies, State Farm furnished defenses to John and Steven, but reserved its rights to disclaim coverage and to terminate each defense should it determine that Pierse's injuries were not "accidental," as defined in the policies, but were the result of the insureds' "intentional acts," which are specifically excluded from coverage.

In the underlying Supreme Court action, Pierse, John, Steven, and Terwilliger testified at length at oral depositions, and subjecting themselves to extensive cross examination, gave their versions of the incident that had taken place on July 2, 1994, during a graduation party on Dogwood Avenue, West Hempstead, New York. Approximately 50 people attended the party, which was not supervised by the parents of the student in whose home the party took place.

By separate Orders To Show Cause, consolidated for the purposes of this Decision, State Farm seeks an Order pursuant to CPL § 720.35(2) to unseal the two criminal court files to the extent of obtaining copies of Certificates of Disposition, and plea allocution minutes, in the event that the defendants entered guilty pleas. In support of its applications, State Farm cites Royal Globe Insurance Company v. Mottola, 89 A.D.2d 907, 453 N.Y.S.2d 723 (2nd Dep't 1982) and Matter of Gannett Suburban Newspapers v. Clerk of County Court, County of Putnam, 230 A.D.2d 741, 646 N.Y.S.2d 58 (2nd Dep't 1996).

In his Supporting Affirmations, Michael M. Burkart, Esq., attorney for State Farm, states that he believes that about one month after the incident John and Steven were arrested for Assault in violation of Penal Law section 120.00(1), and that they subsequently pleaded guilty to either Assault or Attempted Assault, either of which would be a crime and would be sufficient to establish "intent to injure," thereby defeating coverage in the Supreme Court action.

John and Steven oppose the applications, claiming that State Farm is already aware of the incident's details through the oral depositions of the participants in the incident; that State Farm seeks to unseal the records solely for impermissible impeachment and declaratory judgment purposes; that this is not a matter of overwhelming public or community interest; that John and Steven have not waived the protection afforded them by the sealing of the records; and that the records would not be used to the benefit of the youthful offenders in the defense of the Supreme Court action, but rather to harm the youthful offenders by defeating coverage through declaratory judgment proceedings.

Before determining whether access to the criminal court records is statutorily permissible, the court must review the youthful offender statute itself, the primary purpose behind the statute, and any exceptions that have been carved out of the statute.

Criminal Procedure Law § 720.35 provides:

§ 720.35. Youthful offender adjudication; effect thereof; records.

1. A youthful offender adjudication is not a judgment of conviction for a crime or any other offense ...

2. 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 justice 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, other than an institution to which such youth has been committed ... [or] a probation department of this state that requires such official records and papers for the purpose of carrying out duties specifically authorized by law....

In People v. Caruso, 92 Misc.2d 559, 560, 400 N.Y.S.2d 686, 687 (Onondaga County Ct.1977), where the court declined to apply the Youthful Offender law, the court noted that "... the essential purpose of the youthful offender process remains unaltered: to enable a youthful wrongdoer to avoid a conviction for a 'crime.' " Further in its opinion, the court quoted Professor Richard G. Denzer's comments that: " 'In appraising the scheme, one must bear in mind the aforementioned proposition that the primary purpose of the youthful offender process is avoidance of the stigma and practical consequences of a conviction for a crime'. (Emphasis added.) (Denzer, Practice Commentary, McKinney's Cons.Laws of N.Y., Book 11A, CPL art. 720, pp. 316-17.)" (Supra, at 560-561, 400 N.Y.S.2d 686.)

In addition, the Court of Appeals stated in People v. Drayton, 39 N.Y.2d 580, 584, 350 N.E.2d 377, 381, 385 N.Y.S.2d 1, 3 (1976), "The youthful offender provisions of the Criminal Procedure Law 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 which, although crimes, may not have been the serious deeds of hardened criminals."

As such, John and Steven's respective criminal records were sealed and the disposition of their respective cases was to be kept confidential unless access to their files was deemed statutorily permissible as stated in CPL § 720.35(2).

The courts through interpretation and application of the Youthful Offender law have carved out exceptions, but have also upheld the law as written. The Court will now examine case law interpretations of the sealing provisions of the Youthful Offender Law.

In Matter of Cacchioli v. Hoberman, 31 N.Y.2d 287, 291 N.E.2d 117, 338 N.Y.S.2d 865 (1972), Judge Jasen, in a concurring opinion, noted the importance of the public interest in applying the youthful offender law. There, the issue was...