People v. Robinson

781 N.E.2d 908, 98 N.Y.2d 755
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedOctober 22, 2002
StatusPublished
Cited by34 cases

This text of 781 N.E.2d 908 (People v. Robinson) 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
People v. Robinson, 781 N.E.2d 908, 98 N.Y.2d 755 (N.Y. 2002).

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

In each case, the order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

Defendants contend that the Appellate Division violated their appellate due process rights when it denied their requests for access to grand jury minutes. As a threshold matter, a party seeking disclosure of grand jury minutes must establish a compelling and particularized need for them. Only then must the court balance various factors to assess, in its discretion, whether disclosure is appropriate under the circumstances presented (People v Fetcho, 91 NY2d 765, 769 [1998]; Matter of Lungen v Kane, 88 NY2d 861, 862-863 [1996]; Matter of District Attorney of Suffolk County, 58 NY2d 436, 444 [1983]). This [757]*757two-step procedure comports with the requirements of due process (see generally, People v Ramos, 85 NY2d 678, 684 [1995]).

In these appeals, defendants did not meet their threshold burden of demonstrating a compelling and particularized need for the minutes. We conclude, therefore, that the Appellate Division did not abuse its discretion and did not deprive defendants of their rights to appellate due process and effective assistance of appellate counsel in either case.

The additional contention raised by defendant Robinson relating to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the assault in the second degree charge is without merit.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Smith, Levine, Ciparick, Wesley, Rosenblatt and Graffeo concur.

In each case: Order affirmed in a memorandum.

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

Related

People v. Fontanez
2025 NY Slip Op 05166 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2025)
Sculti v. Finley
177 N.Y.S.3d 910 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)
People v. DeFreitas
157 N.Y.S.3d 770 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)
People v. Badia
2021 NY Slip Op 03420 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
Matter of Acevedo v. Bender
2021 NY Slip Op 00843 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
Matter of Rios v. Gonzalez
2020 NY Slip Op 146 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
BROCKWAY, STEVEN P., PEOPLE v
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017
People v. Brockway
148 A.D.3d 1815 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
People v. Ford
148 A.D.3d 1656 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Matter of Perryman v. Gennaro
2017 NY Slip Op 985 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
People v. Wells
138 A.D.3d 947 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Matter of Friedman v. Rice
134 A.D.3d 826 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
The People v. Jose Martinez Baxin
41 N.E.3d 62 (New York Court of Appeals, 2015)
James v. Donovan
130 A.D.3d 1032 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Anilao v. Spota
918 F. Supp. 2d 157 (E.D. New York, 2013)
Aiani v. Donovan
98 A.D.3d 972 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
People v. Singh
36 Misc. 3d 910 (New York Supreme Court, 2012)
Matott v. Richards
79 A.D.3d 1320 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
People v. Ridge
25 Misc. 3d 432 (New York District Court, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
781 N.E.2d 908, 98 N.Y.2d 755, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-robinson-ny-2002.