()

Judge Bianka Perez

Read Full-Text Decision

RG moved to seal court records under CPL §160.50, and prosecutors opposed. Court papers in this matter were no longer available as the file was destroyed as the age of the case exceeded that for which records were retained by the court system. Also, court minutes were unavailable as the court reporter’s name was undiscernible. The court stated the parties must rely on the CRIMS records and Certificates of Disposition to ascertain prior court proceedings. RG was arrested in 1983, and two docket numbers were listed, one of which was dismissed. CRIMS indicated he pleaded guilty to attempted petit larceny. Both parties offered explanations why the docket was dismissed—RG indicated a double jeopardy dismissal, while prosecutors claimed consideration of a taken plea. The court stated it would not speculate as to why the docket was dismissed, but agreed §160.50 served the goal of ensuring a person charged, but not convicted of an offense, suffered no stigma or unfortunate by-products of even unsuccessful criminal prosecutions. Prosecutors failed to show the interests of justice required the case to remain unsealed, finding RG’s past criminal record insufficient to maintain this 33 year old dismissed case unsealed. Hence, the motion to seal was granted.