People v. Ramos

• Decision Date: 05 February 1992
• Citation: 581 N.Y.S.2d 559,153 Misc.2d 277
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York v. Enrique RAMOS, Defendant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court

Page 559

581 N.Y.S.2d 559

153 Misc.2d 277

The PEOPLE of the State of New York v. Enrique RAMOS, Defendant.

Supreme Court, Bronx County,

Part 47.

Feb. 5, 1992.

Robert T. Johnson, Dist. Atty., Bronx County by Susan Strauss, Asst. Dist. Atty., for people.

Mitchell Garber, Garber Klien & Nelson, Lake Success, for defendant.

RICHARD LEE PRICE, J.:

I. Defendant's motion for an order pursuant to C.P.L. § 720.35(2) to unseal the Court's file in the case of People v. Eric Morton is decided in accordance with the following decision.

C.P.L. § 720.35(2) states that:

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, the division of parole and a probation department of this state that requires such official records and papers for the purpose of carrying out duties specifically authorized by law.

Neither defendant nor the People have set forth any statute or authorization by the Court which issued the Y.O., to allow for the unsealing of the Court file of this complainant witness' Y.O. adjudication. (See Matter of Dorothy D., 49 N.Y.2d 212, 424 N.Y.S.2d 890, 400 N.E.2d 1342 (1980)). The defendant requests this information to "learn the underlying facts" (see defendant's motion page 4), yet sets forth certain factual allegations: that this witness was arrested on January 25, 1990 and charged with Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Third Degree, in that he was alleged to have possessed a loaded .32 caliber gun. Subsequently, the witness pleaded guilty to that charge and was adjudicated a youthful offender, and received five years probation.

The defendant also seeks the presentence investigation report, and the minutes of the witness' plea allocution.

A youthful offender adjudication is not a judgment of conviction for a crime or any other offense (C.P.L. § 720.35(1)).

Youthful offender adjudication is to avoid the stigma and practical consequences which accompany a criminal conviction. (See People v. Cook, 37 N.Y.2d 591, 376 N.Y.S.2d 110, 338 N.E.2d 619 (1975), citing People v. Shannon, 1 A.D.2d 226, 231, 149 N.Y.S.2d 550, 556 (2d Dept.1956), affd. 2 N.Y.2d 792, 158 N.Y.S.2d 334, 139 N.E.2d 430 (1956); Practice Commentary, McKinney's Cons.Laws of N.Y., Book 11A, C.P.L. Art. 720). The conviction is deemed vacated, and replaced by a youthful offender adjudication (C.P.L. § 720.20(3)).

Since a youthful adjudication is not a conviction for a crime, it may not be shown to affect the witness' credibility (Cook, supra 37 N.Y.2d p. 595, 376 N.Y.S.2d 110, 338 N.E.2d 619; People v. Vidal, 26 N.Y.2d 249, 253, 309 N.Y.S.2d 336, 339, 257 N.E.2d 886, 889 (1970); People v. Rahming, 26 N.Y.2d 411, 311 N.Y.S.2d 292, 259 N.E.2d 727 (1970); see also, Richardson, Evidence, 10th Ed. § 506). However, it is permissible to use the underlying facts and circumstances pertaining to the youthful offender adjudication in order to impeach the witness (see People v. Warner, 52 A.D.2d 684, 382 N.Y.S.2d 377 (3rd Dept.1976)).

In People v. J.K., 137 Misc.2d 394, 520 N.Y.S.2d 986 (Suff.Co.Ct.1987), the civil plaintiff, in an action for damages, made a motion to unseal the defendant's Y.O. adjudication in order to properly prosecute the civil action which arose out of the same set of facts. The Court denied the motion, holding that the plaintiffs had not shown the need nor the relevancy, nor the support for their request. As the plaintiffs were aware of the underlying facts in their case, there was no need to breach the confidentiality of the Court's file. (J.K., supra, p. 399, 520 N.Y.S.2d 986).

Such is the case here. The defendant seeks information about the complainant witness concerning the same underlying facts for which he, the defendant, was arrested. The defendant, if he so chooses, could testify to the underlying facts ¹. As the defendant already knows the underlying facts, he already has the information necessary to cross-examine and/or impeach the complainant witness as to his illegal act. This is not the case, as in People v. Scott, 134 Misc.2d 224, 510 N.Y.S.2d 413 (Sup.Ct.1986) where the Court granted the defendant's motion to unseal the complainant's Y.O. adjudication for a prior crime, where the defendant needed to ascertain the underlying facts in order to cross-examine the witness.

In Royal Globe Insurance Co. v. Mottola, 89 A.D.2d 907, 453 N.Y.S.2d 723 (2d Dept.1982), the defendant's plea minutes were utilized by the Court in deciding and granting the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability arising out of an arson case. The defendant had pleaded guilty to Arson in the Fourth Degree, after which he was adjudicated a youthful offender. The Appellate Division reversed, and held that it was error for the records (the plea minutes) to have been disclosed and utilized since there was no authorization by the Court for their disclosure.

Although it has been held that access to such confidential information is appropriate where the information sought is to be used to show specific instances of bias, prejudice or ulterior motive of the witness (see, e.g., Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308, 94 S.Ct. 1105, 39 L.Ed.2d 347 (1973)), such is not the case here. As this Court said in Matter of Department of Juvenile Justice v. George, 111 Misc.2d 19, 443 N.Y.S.2d 314 (Sup.Ct.1981),

... there is no such compulsion when requests to examine records are motivated by nothing more than impeachment of witnesses' general credibility. Denial of...