Gibson v. Grady

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gibson v. Grady

192 A.D.2d 657, 597 N.Y.S.2d 84, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3871

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

DecidedApril 19, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 192 A.D.2d 657 (Gibson v. Grady) 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

Gibson v. Grady, 192 A.D.2d 657, 597 N.Y.S.2d 84, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3871 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to compel disclosure of the District Attorney’s instructions to the Grand Jury with regard to Dutchess County Indictment No. 132/78, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Bernhard, J.), dated January 18, 1991, which dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The petitioner failed to demonstrate a compelling and particularized need for access to the Grand Jury minutes which he seeks (see, Matter of District Attorney of Suffolk County, 58 NY2d 436, 444). We additionally note that Grand Jury minutes are court records and not agency records and accordingly are exempt from the ambit of the Freedom of Information Law, Public Officers Law § 84 et seq. (see, Matter of Moore v Santucci, 151 AD2d 677). Bracken, J. P., Miller, Lawrence, Copertino and Santucci, JJ., concur.

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

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to compel disclosure of the District Attorney’s instructions to the Grand Jury with regard to Dutchess County Indictment No. 132/78, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Bernhard, J.), dated January 18, 1991, which dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The petitioner failed to demonstrate a compelling and particularized need for access to the Grand Jury minutes which he seeks (see, Matter of District Attorney of Suffolk County, 58 NY2d 436, 444). We additionally note that Grand Jury minutes are court records and not agency records and accordingly are exempt from the ambit of the Freedom of Information Law, Public Officers Law § 84 et seq. (see, Matter of Moore v Santucci, 151 AD2d 677). Bracken, J. P., Miller, Lawrence, Copertino and Santucci, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

192 A.D.2d 657, 597 N.Y.S.2d 84, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3871, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gibson-v-grady-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack