Marcano v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Marcano v. City of New York

264 A.D.2d 823, 695 N.Y.S.2d 597

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

DecidedSeptember 27, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 264 A.D.2d 823 (Marcano v. City of New York) 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

Marcano v. City of New York, 264 A.D.2d 823, 695 N.Y.S.2d 597 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

In consolidated actions to recover damages for [824]*824personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hutcherson, J.), dated October 22, 1997, which denied their motion to direct the defendants in Action No. 2, John Pirozzi and Frank Rotundi, to produce documents they obtained from the District Attorney, Kings County, in a criminal trial in which they were defendants relative to charges arising put of the circumstances which form the gravamen of these actions.

Ordered that the order is modified by deleting the provision thereof denying the motion in its entirety and substituting therefor a provision granting the motion to the extent that the defendants in Action No. 2 shall produce the minutes of the plaintiffs’ Grand Jury testimony and any prior written or recorded statements made by the plaintiffs and shall submit to the court the Grand Jury testimony of all other witnesses immediately prior to trial; as so modified, the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs to the plaintiffs.

Although the traditional rule is for nondisclosure of Grand Jury minutes (see, Matter of District Attorney of Suffolk County, 58 NY2d 436), under the circumstances of this case, the plaintiffs should have access to their own Grand Jury testimony as well as any of their prior statements which are in the possession of the defendants. The considerations for secrecy are not present herein (cf., People v Di Napoli, 27 NY2d 229) inasmuch as the defendants are in possession of the Grand Jury proceedings, including the testimony of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs’ prior statements are discoverable pursuant to CPLR 3101 (e). Further, the Grand Jury testimony of other witnesses are to be submitted to the court immediately prior to trial as such minutes may be properly used not only for impeachment purposes, but also to refresh recollection or lead a hostile witness at a civil trial (see, Martinez v CPC Intl., 88 AD2d 656). Altman, J. P., Friedmann, McGinity and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

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

In consolidated actions to recover damages for [824]*824personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hutcherson, J.), dated October 22, 1997, which denied their motion to direct the defendants in Action No. 2, John Pirozzi and Frank Rotundi, to produce documents they obtained from the District Attorney, Kings County, in a criminal trial in which they were defendants relative to charges arising put of the circumstances which form the gravamen of these actions.

Ordered that the order is modified by deleting the provision thereof denying the motion in its entirety and substituting therefor a provision granting the motion to the extent that the defendants in Action No. 2 shall produce the minutes of the plaintiffs’ Grand Jury testimony and any prior written or recorded statements made by the plaintiffs and shall submit to the court the Grand Jury testimony of all other witnesses immediately prior to trial; as so modified, the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs to the plaintiffs.

Although the traditional rule is for nondisclosure of Grand Jury minutes (see, Matter of District Attorney of Suffolk County, 58 NY2d 436), under the circumstances of this case, the plaintiffs should have access to their own Grand Jury testimony as well as any of their prior statements which are in the possession of the defendants. The considerations for secrecy are not present herein (cf., People v Di Napoli, 27 NY2d 229) inasmuch as the defendants are in possession of the Grand Jury proceedings, including the testimony of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs’ prior statements are discoverable pursuant to CPLR 3101 (e). Further, the Grand Jury testimony of other witnesses are to be submitted to the court immediately prior to trial as such minutes may be properly used not only for impeachment purposes, but also to refresh recollection or lead a hostile witness at a civil trial (see, Martinez v CPC Intl., 88 AD2d 656). Altman, J. P., Friedmann, McGinity and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

264 A.D.2d 823, 695 N.Y.S.2d 597, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marcano-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack