Home/New York State Court of Claims/Marinelli v. State

Marinelli v. State

71 Misc. 2d 62, 335 N.Y.S.2d 545, 1972 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1651
CourtNew York Court of Claims
DecidedAugust 8, 1972
DocketClaim No. 54558
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 71 Misc. 2d 62 (Marinelli v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Claims primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Marinelli v. State, 71 Misc. 2d 62, 335 N.Y.S.2d 545, 1972 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1651 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1972).

Opinion

Milton Albert, J.

Claimant’s intestate, it is alleged, was killed by an officer of the Staté Police on July 27, 1971 during a pursuit. It is further alleged that there were no witnesses to the occurrence other than the participants.

An investigation of the occurrence was conducted by the Division of State Police and by the District Attorney of Columbia County and the Grand Jury of Columbia County. The police officer involved appeared before the Grand Jury. No indictment issued and the investigation terminated.

On June 6,1972, the court denied without prejudice, claimant’s motion to examine the minutes of the Grand Jury (Motion No. M-14503).

Claimant here renews her application for permission to inspect the Grand Jury minutes solely with respect to testimony given by the police officer involved, William Sickinger.

The secrecy of Grand Jury minutes is not absolute; and an inspection can be had in aid of proceedings other than criminal, but only to protect the rights of the public (People v. Di Napoli, 35 A D 2d 28, 30, affd. 27 N Y 2d 229). General disclosure or widespread publication is not permitted, but may be had for use for impeachment purposes (People v. Di Napoli, 27 N Y 2d 229, supra). At page 237 of 27 N Y 2d, the Court of Appeals per Fulo, Ch. J., quoted the following with approval: “ [i]t is now universally conceded that a witness may be impeached in any subsequent trial, civil or criminal, by self-contradictory testimony * * * given by him before the grand jury.”

For the purposes hereinbefore set forth, the claimant’s motion with respect to the testimony given to the Grand Jury only by William Sickinger is granted.

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

Related

New York City Civilian Complaint Review Board v. Office of the District Attorney
53 Misc. 3d 912 (New York Supreme Court, 2015)
People v. Lester
135 Misc. 2d 205 (New York Supreme Court, 1987)
People v. Patrick M.
131 Misc. 2d 695 (New York Supreme Court, 1986)
In re FOJP Service Corp.
119 Misc. 2d 287 (New York Supreme Court, 1983)
Jones v. State
79 A.D.2d 273 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1981)
In re City of Buffalo
57 A.D.2d 47 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1977)
People v. Washington
84 Misc. 2d 935 (New York Supreme Court, 1976)
People v. Werfel
82 Misc. 2d 1029 (New York Supreme Court, 1975)
Herring v. City of Syracuse
81 Misc. 2d 1060 (New York County Courts, 1975)
In re John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance
81 Misc. 2d 269 (New York Supreme Court, 1975)
Viruet v. Sylvester
331 A.2d 286 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1975)
Foley v. City of New York
75 Misc. 2d 664 (New York Supreme Court, 1973)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
71 Misc. 2d 62, 335 N.Y.S.2d 545, 1972 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1651, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marinelli-v-state-nyclaimsct-1972.