In re Joseph M.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Joseph M.

188 A.D.2d 319

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

DecidedDecember 3, 1992

StatusPublished

This text of 188 A.D.2d 319 (In re Joseph M.) 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

In re Joseph M., 188 A.D.2d 319 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Solomon, J.), entered on or about May 21,1992, which granted a motion by petitioner for an order unsealing records and evidence pertaining to a Criminal Court Docket in People v Joseph M., previously sealed pursuant to CPL 160.50, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondent is accused of purchasing six vials of crack cocaine. Though he was acquitted of criminal possession of a controlled substance after a jury trial, disciplinary charges based upon the same incident were brought by petitioner.

Petitioner made "a compelling demonstration, by affirmation, that without an unsealing of criminal records, the ends of protecting the public through investigation and possible discipline * * * cannot be accomplished.” (Matter of Dondi, 63 NY2d 331, 338.) A sufficient showing was made that documentary and physical evidence necessary to the disciplinary case against respondent was contained in the sealed file. Concur— Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Wallach, Ross and Asch, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Solomon, J.), entered on or about May 21,1992, which granted a motion by petitioner for an order unsealing records and evidence pertaining to a Criminal Court Docket in People v Joseph M., previously sealed pursuant to CPL 160.50, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondent is accused of purchasing six vials of crack cocaine. Though he was acquitted of criminal possession of a controlled substance after a jury trial, disciplinary charges based upon the same incident were brought by petitioner.

Petitioner made "a compelling demonstration, by affirmation, that without an unsealing of criminal records, the ends of protecting the public through investigation and possible discipline * * * cannot be accomplished.” (Matter of Dondi, 63 NY2d 331, 338.) A sufficient showing was made that documentary and physical evidence necessary to the disciplinary case against respondent was contained in the sealed file. Concur— Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Wallach, Ross and Asch, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

188 A.D.2d 319, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-joseph-m-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack