Davis v. People

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Davis v. People

52 A.D.3d 997, 860 N.Y.S.2d 644

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJune 12, 2008

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 52 A.D.3d 997 (Davis v. People) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Davis v. People, 52 A.D.3d 997, 860 N.Y.S.2d 644 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

Rose, J.

Appeal from an order of the County Court of St. Lawrence County (Richards, J.), entered October 2, 2007, which denied petitioner’s application pursuant to CPL 390.50 for a copy of his presentence report.

Petitioner, a prison inmate, filed an application in County Court pursuant to CPL 390.50 for a copy of the presentence investigation report, prepared in connection with the prior criminal action against him, in order to prepare for an appearance before the Board of Parole. County Court denied his application and petitioner appeals.

We reverse. Pursuant to CPL 390.50 (1), disclosure of a presentence report is permitted upon a proper factual showing of need (see Matter of Gutkaiss v People, 49 AD3d 979, 979 [2008]; Matter of Kilgore v People, 274 AD2d 636, 636 [2000]). Here, as the People acknowledge, petitioner made such a showing, as he demonstrated an impending hearing before the Board and the presentence report is one of the factors that the Board is required to consider upon application for release (see Executive Law § 259-i [1] [a]; [2] [c]; Matter of Gutkaiss v People, 49 AD3d at 979; Matter of Shader v People, 233 AD2d 717, 717 [1996]).

Mercure, J.P, Lahtinen, Kavanagh and Stein, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs, and matter remitted to the County Court of St. Lawrence County for further proceedings not inconsistent with this Court’s decision.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Rose, J.

Appeal from an order of the County Court of St. Lawrence County (Richards, J.), entered October 2, 2007, which denied petitioner’s application pursuant to CPL 390.50 for a copy of his presentence report.

Petitioner, a prison inmate, filed an application in County Court pursuant to CPL 390.50 for a copy of the presentence investigation report, prepared in connection with the prior criminal action against him, in order to prepare for an appearance before the Board of Parole. County Court denied his application and petitioner appeals.

We reverse. Pursuant to CPL 390.50 (1), disclosure of a presentence report is permitted upon a proper factual showing of need (see Matter of Gutkaiss v People, 49 AD3d 979, 979 [2008]; Matter of Kilgore v People, 274 AD2d 636, 636 [2000]). Here, as the People acknowledge, petitioner made such a showing, as he demonstrated an impending hearing before the Board and the presentence report is one of the factors that the Board is required to consider upon application for release (see Executive Law § 259-i [1] [a]; [2] [c]; Matter of Gutkaiss v People, 49 AD3d at 979; Matter of Shader v People, 233 AD2d 717, 717 [1996]).

Mercure, J.P, Lahtinen, Kavanagh and Stein, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs, and matter remitted to the County Court of St. Lawrence County for further proceedings not inconsistent with this Court’s decision.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

52 A.D.3d 997, 860 N.Y.S.2d 644, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/davis-v-people-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack