In THE MATTER OF CITY OF ELMIRA v. John Doe

897 N.E.2d 1049, 11 N.Y.3d 799
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedOctober 16, 2008
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 897 N.E.2d 1049 (In THE MATTER OF CITY OF ELMIRA v. John Doe) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In THE MATTER OF CITY OF ELMIRA v. John Doe, 897 N.E.2d 1049, 11 N.Y.3d 799 (N.Y. 2008).

Opinion

*800 OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division, insofar as appealed from, should be affirmed, without costs.

In this special civil proceeding brought pursuant to CPL 160.50 to vacate a sealing order, the primary issue before this Court is whether some of the sealed materials constitute “official records” within the meaning of CPL 160.50 (1) (c). * We agree with the Appellate Division that certain sealed records in this case (i.e., property tags, bags and logs showing the chain of custody of money surrendered by persons arrested by respondent, and other records generated in the investigations of those arrests) are not official records subject to a CPL 160.50 seal. Respondent’s remaining argument that the Appellate Division erred in granting “resettlement and reargument” is without merit.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur.

Order, insofar as appealed from, affirmed, without costs, in a memorandum.

*

All parties now acknowledge that CPL 160.50 (1) (d) is not applicable; accordingly, we may not pass on those aspects of the rulings below. Throughout this proceeding, neither party addressed whether CPL 160.50 (1) (c) is a proper basis upon which to obtain sealed documents in this procedural context. They simply contest whether the subject materials constitute “official records.” Thus, as this threshold issue was not preserved for appellate review, we must here accept without comment the general applicability of CPL 160.50 (1) (c) as a basis for vacatur.

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

Related

J. Doe 1 v. Trustees of Columbia Univ. in the City of N.Y.
2026 NY Slip Op 26034 (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2026)
Kokoska v. Joe Tahan's Furniture Liquidation Ctrs., Inc.
2025 NY Slip Op 04130 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2025)
People v. Isaacs
2025 NY Slip Op 01818 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2025)
Matter of N.J. (S.H)
2024 NY Slip Op 24318 (Kings Family Court, 2024)
Matter of New York Times Co. v. District Attorney of Kings County
2019 NY Slip Op 8410 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Prag v. Prag
2018 NY Slip Op 3414 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Albany County District Attorney's Office v. William T.
88 A.D.3d 1133 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
897 N.E.2d 1049, 11 N.Y.3d 799, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-matter-of-city-of-elmira-v-john-doe-ny-2008.