Woods v City of New York

[*1] Woods v City of New York 2009 NY Slip Op 51156(U) [23 Misc 3d 1136(A)] Decided on June 9, 2009 Supreme Court, Kings County Miller, J. Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on June 9, 2009
Supreme Court, Kings County

James Woods, Plaintiff,

against

The City of New York, THE NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, POLICE OFFICER LARRY CARITO, POLICE OFFICER CLAYTON BARNETT, SERGEANT WAYNE LOCK, POLICE OFFICER "JOHN DOE" No.1 (intended as police officer whose present identity is unknown) and POLICE OFFICER "JOHN DOE" #2 (intended as police officer whose present identity is unknown) and Police Officer "JOHN DOE" #3 (intended as police officer whose present identity is unknown), Defendants.



35934/05



The plaintiff is represented by the Law Offices of Ira Perlman and Robert Rosen by Robert Rosen, Esq., of counsel, the defendant the City of New York is represented by Michael A. Cardozo, Esq., Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, non-party District Attorney Kings County is represented by Assistant District Attorney Judith Aarons, Esq., of counsel.

Robert J. Miller, J.

In this negligence action, the plaintiff James Woods (Woods) seeks an order directing the District Attorney of Kings County to provide plaintiff with a certified copy of the entire Grand

Jury minutes in relation to criminal charges brought against him which were dismissed after a mistrial, in the case of The People of the State of New York against James Woods, Indictment Numbers 2223-03 and 2241-03.

In this action, Woods seeks damages arising out of a search and seizure of drugs which led to his arrest and imprisonment. On March 23, 2003, Woods's girlfriend, Paula Pierce (Pierce) called the police and filed a complaint for assault against the plaintiff. [FN1] On March 24, 2003, the Supreme Court of Kings County issued a search warrant of the apartment that Woods shared with Pierce based on information provided to the issuing Judge, Justice Lott by Police Officer Carito. On the same day, Police Officer Carito executed the warrant recovering drugs, drug paraphernalia, guns, ammunition and money . On April 16, 2003, a Kings County Grand Jury returned a Indictment (Number 2223/2003) against the plaintiff for charges stemming from the proceeds of the search warrant.[FN2]

Plaintiff is alleging that false information was provided and /or testimony was provided for the purpose of procuring the search warrant which led to his unlawful detention and arrest. [*2]

The transcript of the proceedings leading up to the declaration of a mistrial on the criminal charges against the plaintiff held by the Honorable Alan D. Marrus on October 27, 2004 indicates that the Assistant District Attorney handling the case disclosed that on the day of Wood's arrest, the officers had returned to plaintiff's residence and with the consent of Pierce, used a key recovered from plaintiff to unlock a storage room containing locked containers. The Assistant District Attorney informed Judge Marrus that it was unclear whether or not the officers had opened the containers before obtaining the search warrant in light of the conflicting statements made by Pierce about the conduct of the two different officers who were present at the arrest and at the execution of the warrant. It was also disclosed that the drug evidence recovered by Police Officer Carito's may have been vouchered with improper dates. This was a concern because Judge Marrus had held a Mapp/Dunaway hearing to determine the admissibility of the key which was used to recover the drugs in the storage area but not the admissibility of the drugs. The Assistant District Attorney was now stating that the drugs seized outside the warrant were vouchered and dated the same date as the drugs recovered pursuant to the search warrant. In response to Judge Marrus's questioning concerning the date the drugs were vouchered, the Assistant District Attorney stated; " It was in the Grand Jury Minutes that the crack cocaine that was seized on the date that the defendant was arrested."

Judge Marrus declared a mistrial finding that the information relied on by Justice Lott who issued the search warrant might have been unreliable stating; "Somebody is not reliable, either this informant is not a reliable informant or a police officer committed perjury."

Pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law § 160.50 (1) (c), all official records in relation to the indictment were sealed.

A "strong presumption of confidentiality" applies to Grand Jury proceedings (Ruggiero v. Fahey, 103 AD2d 65, [ 2d Dept 1984], CPL 190.25[4] ). Nevertheless, the rule of secrecy is not an absolute and, in the discretion of the trial court, disclosure may be directed when, after a balancing of the public interest in disclosure against the rule of secrecy, the former outweighs the latter. (People v. Di Napoli, 27 NY2d 229, [1970].) To overcome the presumption of confidentiality, the "one seeking disclosure first must demonstrate a compelling and particularized need for access". (Matter of District Attorney of Suffolk County, 58 NY2d 436, [1993].) "However, just any demonstration will not suffice. For it and the countervailing policy ground it reflects must be strong enough to overcome the presumption of confidentiality. In short, without the initial showing of a compelling and particularized need, the question of discretion need not be reached, for then there simply would be no policies to balance." (Matter of District [*3]Attorney of Suffolk County, 58 NY2d 436, [1993]).

Here, the plaintiff Woods has demonstrated a compelling and particularized need to have the Grand Jury minutes disclosed which is to have a complete and full examination of the witnesses for his civil action. Moreover, where, as here, a criminal mistrial is declared because as Judge Marrus stated "Somebody is not reliable, either this informant is not a reliable

informant or a police officer committed perjury", there is a compelling public interest to have full disclosure of the facts regarding possible official misconduct. Finally, the plaintiff, who was the target of the Grand Jury proceeding, is the one seeking the testimony, thus any privacy rights of the accused are obviated. Furthermore, the transcript of the mistrial also reveals the identity of the confidential informant who's testimony supported the application for the search warrant. Therefore, there is no need to her protect her identity.

The motion for the unsealing and the release of the grand jury minutes is granted. The District Attorney is directed to provide transcript to all parties within 30 days of service of this order with notice of entry.

The foregoing constitutes the decision and Order of the Court.

_______________________

Robert J. Miller

J.S.C.

June 9, 2009 Footnotes

Footnote 1: On March 26, 2003 the plaintiff pled guilty to criminal Contempt in the Second Degree for the charges related to the assault.

Footnote 2: On June 10, 2004, an indictment 2223/2003 was consolidated with indictment 2241/2004. Indictment 2241/2004 was a charge of Criminal Contempt in the First Degree and other charges for threatening a witness due to testify under indictment 2223/2003. On December 6, 2004 the plaintiff pled guilty to the Criminal Contempt Charges.