Gutkaiss v. People

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gutkaiss v. People

11 A.D.3d 845, 783 N.Y.S.2d 156, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12618

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

DecidedOctober 28, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 11 A.D.3d 845 (Gutkaiss 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

Gutkaiss v. People, 11 A.D.3d 845, 783 N.Y.S.2d 156, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12618 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the County Court of Washington County (Berke, J.), entered December 22, 2003, which denied petitioner’s application pursuant to CPL 390.50 for a copy of his presentence report.

Petitioner sought to obtain a copy of the presentence investigation report prepared in connection with a prior criminal action against him. County Court summarily denied his application and petitioner appeals.

We affirm. CPL 390.50 (1) provides that a presentence report “is confidential and may not be made available to any person . . . except where specifically required or permitted by statute or upon specific authorization of the court.” Here, petitioner’s bare assertion that he needed a copy of the presentence investigation report to prepare for his appearance before the Board of Parole, without any indication that there is an upcoming parole hearing scheduled, was insufficient to constitute a factual showing of his need for the report (see Matter of Kilgore v People, 274 AD2d 636 [2000]; Matter of Blanche v People, 193 AD2d 991 [1993]). Accordingly, we find no reason to disturb County Court’s denial of petitioner’s request. Given our conclusion, petitioner’s remaining contention need not be addressed.

Cardona, P.J., Crew III, Spain, Mugglin and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.

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

Appeal from an order of the County Court of Washington County (Berke, J.), entered December 22, 2003, which denied petitioner’s application pursuant to CPL 390.50 for a copy of his presentence report.

Petitioner sought to obtain a copy of the presentence investigation report prepared in connection with a prior criminal action against him. County Court summarily denied his application and petitioner appeals.

We affirm. CPL 390.50 (1) provides that a presentence report “is confidential and may not be made available to any person . . . except where specifically required or permitted by statute or upon specific authorization of the court.” Here, petitioner’s bare assertion that he needed a copy of the presentence investigation report to prepare for his appearance before the Board of Parole, without any indication that there is an upcoming parole hearing scheduled, was insufficient to constitute a factual showing of his need for the report (see Matter of Kilgore v People, 274 AD2d 636 [2000]; Matter of Blanche v People, 193 AD2d 991 [1993]). Accordingly, we find no reason to disturb County Court’s denial of petitioner’s request. Given our conclusion, petitioner’s remaining contention need not be addressed.

Cardona, P.J., Crew III, Spain, Mugglin and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

11 A.D.3d 845, 783 N.Y.S.2d 156, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12618, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gutkaiss-v-people-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack