New York Mun. Ins. Reciprocal v Village of Briarcliff Manor Police Dept.

[*1] New York Mun. Ins. Reciprocal v Village of Briarcliff Manor Police Dept. 2018 NY Slip Op 51714(U) Decided on November 16, 2018 Supreme Court, Westchester County Ecker, 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 November 16, 2018
Supreme Court, Westchester County

New York Municipal Insurance Reciprocal, a/s/o the Village of Briarcliff Manor, Petitioner,

against

Village of Briarcliff Manor Police Department and Westchester County Police Department, Respondents.



60564/2018



For Petitioner:

Thomas Cicillini, Esq.

Cogdon, Flaherty, O'Callaghan, Reid, Donlon, Travis & Fishlinger

333 Earle Ovington Blvd, STE 502

Uniondale, NY 11553
Lawrence H. Ecker, J.

The following papers numbered 1 through 3 were considered on the motion of NEW YORK MUNICIPAL INSURANCE RECIPROCAL a/s/o THE VILLAGE OF BRIARCLIFF MANOR ("petitioner"), made by Order to Show Cause, signed August 6, 2018, for an order directing VILLAGE OF BRIARCLIFF MANOR POLICE DEPARTMENT and WESTCHESTER COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT ("respondents") to disclose to petitioner's counsel the full and complete, uncensored/unrestricted version of a December 12, 2015, Case Report concerning an arson committed by John Doe at the Village Pool Pavilion located at 3 Library Road, Briarcliff Manor, New York, in order to frame a proper complaint:

PAPERS NUMBERED

Order to Show Cause, Petition, Exhibit A 1-3

Upon the foregoing papers, the court determines as follows:

On December 12, 2015, the Village Pool Pavilion located at 3 Library Road, Briarcliff [*2]Manor, NY was allegedly set ablaze by a 16-year old male ("the Youth"). As the result of the fire, petitioner, as insurer and now subrogee, paid $2,500,000 to its insured, the Village of Briarcliff Manor, to cover property damage losses sustained from the fire. According to newspaper accounts submitted by petitioner in support of this application, the Youth was arrested for starting the fire. As the Youth was designated a youthful offender, the records concerning the arrest and adjudication of the criminal matter were sealed pursuant to CPR Article 720.

On this Order to Show Cause, petitioner moves, pre-commencement, pursuant to CPLR §3102(c), for an order directing respondents to provide copies of the case file maintained by either or both of them, concerning the criminal investigation of the arson. Petitioner concedes that it seeks to uncover the name of the arrested individual in contemplation of bringing an action to mitigate its damages. Affidavits of service were filed by petitioner as to each respondent, neither of whom have submitted opposition to the petition. Notwithstanding the failure of either respondent to oppose the motion, it is denied.

The youthful offender statute (CPL Article 720) provides special measures for persons found to be youthful offenders, which emanate from a legislative desire not to stigmatize youths with criminal records triggered by hasty or thoughtless acts which, although crimes, may not have been the serious deeds of hardened criminals (see Matter of Capital Newspapers Div. of Hearst Corp. v Moynihan, 71 NY2d 263 [1988]; Castiglione v James, F.Q. 115 AD3d 696 [2d Dept 2014]). Consequently, a youthful offender adjudication is not a judgment of conviction for a crime or any other offense (CPL 720.35[1]; Castiglione v James, F.Q., supra).

Pursuant to CPL 720.35[2], all official records and papers concerning the adjudication are sealed. The statute provides:

"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 . . ." (CPL 720.35[2] ).

It is therefore well established that, absent a statute or order of the court which rendered the youthful offender adjudication, disclosure of the information in the confidential records may not be compelled unless the youthful offender has waived the privilege (Castiglione v James, F.Q., supra; Auto Collection, Inc. v C.P., 93 AD3d 621 [2d Dept 2012]; see Green v Montgomery, 95 NY2d 693 [2001]; Doe v D'Angelo, 154 AD3d 1300 [4th Dept 2017]).

Of import, CPL 720.35 [2]:

"is not to be construed as but a minor obstacle to be easily overcome by the plaintiff as it seeks to cast aside the statutory protection afforded to the appellant. The confidentiality of information is part of the comprehensive legislative plan to relieve youthful offenders of the consequences of a criminal conviction and give them a 'second chance' . . . Youthful offender status is designed to protect young offenders. It permits the court to mete out fair punishment for a young adult's crimes and transgressions yet mitigates future consequences in recognition of, inter alia, the youth's lack of experience and the court's hope for his future constructive life . . . The primary advantage of such treatment is the avoidance of the stigma and practical consequences which accompany a criminal conviction (citations omitted)" (State Farm Fire & Cas. Co.v Bongiorno, 237 AD2d 31 [*3][2d Dept 1997]).[FN1]

Consequently, if the strict confidentiality of the records in question is to be broached absent a waiver, it must, under the language of subdivision 2 of CPL 720.35, be authorized disclosure upon "specific authorization of the court" (Royal Globe Ins. Co. v Mottola, 89 AD2d 907 [2d Dept 1982]). This language in the statute permitting access to the confidential records "upon specific authorization of the court," however, refers only to the court which rendered the youthful offender adjudication (CPL 720.35[2]; Castiglione v James, F.Q., supra; see State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v Bongiorno, supra; Royal Globe Ins. Co. v Mottola, supra). This follows from the general inherent power of a court to control its own records (Royal Globe Ins. Co. v Mottola, supra). As such, the appropriate procedure to obtain access to a youthful offender record is by an application to unseal the records made to the court which rendered the youthful offender adjudication (Gannett Suburban Newspapers v Clerk of County Court, County of Putnam, 230 AD2d 741 [2d Dept 1996]).

As this is not the court that rendered the relevant youthful offender adjudication, and there is no basis for finding that the Youth waived the confidentiality of the records, therefore, the court is without jurisdiction to grant the relief demanded. Instead, movant must seek the requested relief from the court that had jurisdiction over the criminal action (Gannett Suburban Newspapers v Clerk of the County Court, County of Putnam, supra).

Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the petition is denied; and it is further

ORDERED that petitioner is directed to serve a copy of this decision, order and judgment upon each respondent by first class mail.

The foregoing constitutes the decision, order and judgment of the court.

Dated: November 16, 2018

White Plains, New York

HON. LAWRENCE H. ECKER, J.S.C. Footnotes

Footnote 1:In light of this purpose, the court must carefully scrutinize each such application, regardless of the lack of opposition from the relevant law enforcement respondents. This is particularly true as the law enforcement agencies may elect not to expend legal resources to protect the confidentiality interests of a non-party youthful offender.