DECISION AND ORDER Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, as counsel to non-party movant New York City Civilian Complaint Review Board (“CCRB”), moves for an order unsealing the records related to the above-captioned sealed criminal case. The New York State Attorney General’s Office, as the prosecuting agency that presented the case against the defendant to the grand jury and trial jury, submitted a letter in support of the CCRB’s application. The defendant opposes. The defendant, a New York City Police Officer, was charged, under Kings County Indictment Number 5873/2016 with Murder in the Second Degree (PL §125.25[1]) and Manslaughter in the First Degree (PL §125.20[1]). On November 6, 2017, following a jury trial, the defendant was acquitted of both counts, and the records relating to the Indictment Number 5873/2016 were sealed pursuant to CPL §160.50(1)(c). The CCRB filed this application seeking an order unsealing records pertaining to the arrest and criminal prosecution of the defendant for use in the administrative prosecution of the defendant for misconduct as a New York City police officer. Criminal Procedure Law §160.50(1)(d) sets forth six instances in which a court has the power to unseal and release records to enumerated categories of persons or agencies all affiliated with law enforcement. CPL §160.50(1)(d) contains “narrowly defined exceptions” which authorize the disclosure of sealed materials, under certain circumstances, to a limited group of third parties. See CPL §160.50(1)(d); Matter of Harper v. Angiolillo, 89 N.Y.2d 761, 766-67 (1997); Matter of Hynes v. Karassik, 47 N.Y.2d, 659, 663 (1979). When a police department conducts a disciplinary proceeding concerning one of its own employees, it acts as a public employer, rather than a “law enforcement agency,” and therefore, the exceptions under CPL §160.50(1)(d)(ii) do not apply here. In the matter of New York State Police v. Charles Q, 192 A.D.2d 142, 144 (3d Dept 1993); City of Elmira v. Doe, 39 A.D.3d 942, 943 (3d Dept 2007). However, “the list of parties permitted to seek the unsealing of records under CPL §160.50(1)(d) has been expanded in extraordinary circumstances, upon showing of a compelling demonstration.” James v. Donovan, 130 A.D.3d 1032, 1036 (2d Dept 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted); New York State Police v. Charles Q, 192 A.D.2d 142, 145 (3d Dept 1993). The party seeking the disclosure of grand jury materials must establish a “compelling and particularized need” for access to them. People v. Robinson, 98 N.Y.2d 755, 756 (2002); James v. Donovan, 130 A.D.3d at 1037. The courts have uniformly held that “some purpose other than generalized public interest and dissemination” should be shown. Id. Here, this court finds that CCRB met its burden by showing that without an unsealing of the criminal records, it could not accomplish protecting the public through investigating and possibly disciplining a police officer. New York State Police v. Charles Q, 192 A.D.2d at 145. CCRB showed that relevant information cannot be obtained from sources other than the grand jury minutes and other sealed records. James v. Donovan, 130 A.D.3d at 1038-1039. CCRB states that it cannot initiate an investigation without a civilian complaint. Here, while the homicide occurred in 2016, CCRB did not receive a civilian complaint concerning this case until May of 2018. At that point, the defendant’s criminal proceeding had been completed, and the records pertaining to the defendant’s arrest and criminal prosecution had been sealed. CCRB states that it had requested records from NYPD, but NYPD’s ability to comply with that request was limited because the records were sealed pursuant to CPL §160.50. In addition, CCRB interviewed the defendant in December of 2019, but CCRB states that the defendant’s counsel who was present during the interview stated that, “…this is a matter that’s already been litigated…it ended in a jury trial with a not guilty…” and “during the course of the [criminal] trial, we learned everything there was to know…” As such, CCRB argues that they are not able to sufficiently investigate this case. Wherefore, it is ordered that any and all records pertaining to People v. Wayne Isaacs, Kings County Indictment Number 5873/2016, which were sealed pursuant to CPL §160.50, are hereby unsealed for the purpose of permitting CCRB to obtain the sealed records; It is further ordered that the unsealed records must be used only by CCRB for the limited purpose of their administrative prosecution, and general disclosure or widespread publication of the record is prohibited; It is further ordered that the New York State Attorney General’s Office to review the file for sensitive or confidential information and pursue a protective order, if necessary. The foregoing constitutes the decision and order of the court. Dated: March 3, 2023
