Scott v. City of New York

2025 NY Slip Op 32721(U)

• Court: New York Supreme Court, New York County
• Decided: August 6, 2025
• Docket: Index No. 150184/2020
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Scott v City of New York 2025 NY Slip Op 32721(U) August 6, 2025 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 150184/2020 Judge: Ariel D. Chesler Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/06/2025 04:22 PM INDEX NO. 150184/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 69 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/06/2025

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY PRESENT: HON. ARIEL D. CHESLER PART 62M Justice ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X INDEX NO. 150184/2020 ALVIN SCOTT, SHAWN STARKE, MOTION DATE 04/01/2025 Plaintiff, MOTION SEQ. NO. 004 -v- THE CITY OF NEW YORK, DENIS CEKIC, POLICE DECISION + ORDER ON OFFICERS JOHN AND JANE DOE MOTION Defendant. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X

The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 004) 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64 were read on this motion to/for DISCOVERY .

Upon the foregoing documents, it is

In this motion, plaintiffs seek an Order pursuant to CPL 245.20(b), CPLR 3104 and 3102

to unseal and disclose the grand jury minutes of defendant Officer Denis Cekic’s (“Officer

Cekic”) testimony who testified before the New York County Grand Jury, in connection with

plaintiffs’ arrests, between December 13, 2018, and December 19, 2018, so that they may verify

the consistency of his grand jury testimony with his deposition testimony.

PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BAKGROUND

This action arises from the arrests of plaintiffs on October 12, 2018, after a complaining

victim called police stating that plaintiff Shawn Starke (“Starke”) grabbed her by the neck,

choked her and then proceeded to menace her with a firearm. Officers arrived on scene shortly

after the call and Officer Cekic spoke to the complaining victim. Officers were directed to

Starke’s apartment. Upon entering the apartment, Officer Cekic allegedly saw plaintiff Alvin

Scott (“Scott”) throw a firearm out the window. Plaintiffs were then arrested. Both plaintiffs

150184/2020 SCOTT, ALVIN vs. CITY OF NEW YORK Page 1 of 4 Motion No. 004

1 of 4 [* 1] FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/06/2025 04:22 PM INDEX NO. 150184/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 69 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/06/2025

were arraigned, and bail was set. On October 18 and 19, 2020, the charges against both plaintiffs

were dismissed. Plaintiffs commenced this action by filing a Summons and Complaint on

January 7, 2020. Plaintiffs assert eleven causes of action against the City of New York and

Officer Cekic. Plaintiffs provided to defense counsel authorizations to unseal records relating to

the arrest and prosecution on September 8, 2020. Plaintiff’s counsel filed a Freedom of

Information Law (“FOIL”) request with the New York County District Attorney on September 8,

2020, for all documents in their possession relating to plaintiff’s October 12, 2018, arrest and

prosecution. On February 16, 2022, the New York County District Attorney’s office released

records to Plaintiff’s counsel, specifically indicating disclosure of grand jury records were

denied, noting the documents are “not subject to disclosure except by court order.” On March 5,

2025, plaintiff filed the instant motion to compel production of the grandy jury minutes of

Officer Cekic’s testimony.

DISCUSSION

In support of the motion, plaintiffs argue that they have shown a particularized need to

obtain the grand jury transcript of Officer Cekic’s testimony because what Officer Cekic claimed

he observed at his deposition differs from the various NYPD and District Attorney notes and

reports which provide a conflicting narrative. As such, plaintiff contends that a review of Officer

Cekic’s grand jury testimony would provide clarity as to which set of facts he presented to the

grand jury.

In opposition, as an initial matter, defendants claim the motion is procedurally defective

and should have been brought before the criminal court that supervised the grand jury.

Additionally, defendants argue plaintiff failed to make a compelling and particularized showing

of need for the grand jury minutes in the underlying prosecution as plaintiff’s speculative

150184/2020 SCOTT, ALVIN vs. CITY OF NEW YORK Page 2 of 4 Motion No. 004

2 of 4 [* 2] FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/06/2025 04:22 PM INDEX NO. 150184/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 69 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/06/2025

assertion that Officer Cekic’s testimony before the grand jury differs from his deposition

testimony is not sufficient to establish this. In light of this, defendants assert that since plaintiff

has failed to demonstrate a compelling and particularized need for disclosure, the Court does not

need to reach the issue of balancing the public interest in disclosing grand jury minutes with the

public interest in maintaining their secrecy.

“Secrecy has been an integral feature of Grand Jury proceedings since well before the

founding of our Nation” (Matter of District Attorney of Suffolk County, 58 NY2d 436, 443

[1983]). “Confidentiality also serves important objectives of ensuring the independence of Grand

Juries, preventing the flight of the accused and encouraging free disclosure of information by

those summoned before it” (id.). However, this rule of secrecy is not absolute (id. at 444). Grand

jury minutes may only be unsealed upon a showing of a “compelling and particularized need for

access to them, even where the individual seeking to unseal the records was the criminal

defendant in the underlying criminal proceeding” (People v. Robinson, 98 NY2d 755, 756

[2002]; Melendez v. City of New York, 109 AD2d 13, 17 [1st Dept 1985]).Then, the Court must

“balance the public interest for disclosure against the public interest favoring secrecy” (People v.

Fetcho, 91 NYS3d 765, 769 [1998]).

Here, plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that there is a compelling and particularized need

to warrant disclosure of Officer Denis Cekic’s grandy jury testimony (Melendez, 109 AD2d at 19

[“The conclusory claim by counsel that the grand jury minutes are needed to prepare for trial or

that they would be useful in impeaching witnesses or cross examination is insufficient to

overcome the presumption of confidentiality”]; Matter of District Attorney of Suffolk County, 58

NY2d at 444 [“Nothing was offered to explain why the liberal discovery devices available under

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure would not suffice”]).

150184/2020 SCOTT, ALVIN vs. CITY OF NEW YORK Page 3 of 4 Motion No. 004

3 of 4 [* 3] FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/06/2025 04:22 PM INDEX NO. 150184/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 69 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/06/2025

Indeed, plaintiffs “did not establish that sources other than . . . [the] grand jury testimony

were inadequate to provide the information” and the “bare claim that the testimony is needed for

impeaching the witness on cross-examination is insufficient to establish a compelling need”

(Crespo v. New York City Housing Authority, 188 AD3d 409, 409-10 [1st Dept 2020]).

As such, the balance of the public interest for disclosure against the public interest

favoring secrecy does not need to be reached (Melendez, 109 AD2d at 19; see also People v.

Badia, 195 AD3d 426, 427 [1st Dept 2021][because there was no showing of compelling and

particularized need the court was not required to “balance various factors to assess, in its

discretion, whether disclosure is appropriate under the circumstances presented”]).

Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED, that plaintiffs’ motion is denied.

This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.

8/6/2025 DATE ARIEL D. CHESLER, J.S.C. CHECK ONE: CASE DISPOSED X NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

□ □ GRANTED X DENIED GRANTED IN PART OTHER

APPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER

□ CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT REFERENCE

150184/2020 SCOTT, ALVIN vs. CITY OF NEW YORK Page 4 of 4 Motion No. 004

4 of 4 [* 4]