Kassebaum v. Morgenthau

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kassebaum v. Morgenthau

270 A.D.2d 71, 704 N.Y.S.2d 61, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2587

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

DecidedMarch 9, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 270 A.D.2d 71 (Kassebaum v. Morgenthau) 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

Kassebaum v. Morgenthau, 270 A.D.2d 71, 704 N.Y.S.2d 61, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2587 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.), entered on or about May 3, 1999, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by petitioner’s brief, denied petitioner’s Freedom of Information Law application to compel respondent District Attorney’s disclosure of certain records pertaining to petitioner’s criminal prosecution, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

As stated in his brief, petitioner seeks disclosure of “statements of witnesses who testified at his criminal trial”. Such statements are protected by the public interest privilege, and, as such, are not subject to disclosure absent a showing, not made here, of a “ ‘ “compelling and particularized need” ’ ” therefor (Matter of Huston v Turkel, 236 AD2d 283, 284, lv denied 90 NY2d 809). Petitioner does not show, for example, that he has discovered anything since trial indicating that perjury was committed by any of the witnesses. Nor does petitioner show that any witness statements made available at trial are no longer in his or his attorney’s possession (see, supra, at 283). We note our rejection of respondent’s argument that the order on appeal is nonfinal and therefore not appealable as of right (CPLR 5701 [a] [2] [v]). Concur — Williams, J. P., Tom, Rubin and Andrias, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.), entered on or about May 3, 1999, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by petitioner’s brief, denied petitioner’s Freedom of Information Law application to compel respondent District Attorney’s disclosure of certain records pertaining to petitioner’s criminal prosecution, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

As stated in his brief, petitioner seeks disclosure of “statements of witnesses who testified at his criminal trial”. Such statements are protected by the public interest privilege, and, as such, are not subject to disclosure absent a showing, not made here, of a “ ‘ “compelling and particularized need” ’ ” therefor (Matter of Huston v Turkel, 236 AD2d 283, 284, lv denied 90 NY2d 809). Petitioner does not show, for example, that he has discovered anything since trial indicating that perjury was committed by any of the witnesses. Nor does petitioner show that any witness statements made available at trial are no longer in his or his attorney’s possession (see, supra, at 283). We note our rejection of respondent’s argument that the order on appeal is nonfinal and therefore not appealable as of right (CPLR 5701 [a] [2] [v]). Concur — Williams, J. P., Tom, Rubin and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

270 A.D.2d 71, 704 N.Y.S.2d 61, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2587, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kassebaum-v-morgenthau-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack