| People v Reyes-Fuentes, William |
| Motion No: 2020-01699 |
| Slip Opinion No: 2020 NY Slip Op 63400(U) |
| Decided on February 21, 2020 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department, Motion Decision |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| This motion is uncorrected and is not subject to publication in the Official Reports. |
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M269909
E/mb
ALAN D. SCHEINKMAN, P.J.
|
2020-01699 The People, etc., plaintiff,D v William Reyes-Fuentes, defendant. The People, etc., plaintiff, v Luis Alejandro Varela, defendant. The People, etc., plaintiff, v Jose Quintanilla-Cruz, defendant. (Ind. No. 1873/18)
| ECISION & ORDER ON APPLICATION |
Applications pursuant to CPL 245.70(6) to review a ruling of an Acting Justice of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, as set forth in a protective order of that court dated February 13, 2020, and, upon review, to vacate or modify the ruling.
Upon the papers filed in support of the applications and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it is
ORDERED that the applications are denied; and it is further,
ORDERED that the documents submitted under seal by the People in connection with these applications pursuant to CPL 245.70(6) are deemed to be filed under seal, and shall continue to be sealed.
Three defendants were charged in an indictment with murder in the second degree. The People made an application for a protective order allowing them to withhold certain information otherwise required to be disclosed under CPL 245.20(1). The Supreme Court granted the application after conducting an ex parte proceeding. Upon a prior application pursuant to CPL 245.70(6), I vacated the protective order and remitted the matter to the Supreme Court to afford the defendants an opportunity to make arguments to that court with respect to the People's application for a protective order (see People v Reyes-Fuentes, ___ AD3d ___, 2020 NY Slip Op 00518). After affording the defendants such an opportunity, the Supreme Court issued a new protective order along with sealed written findings explaining its determination. The defendants now seek expedited review of this determination pursuant to CPL 245.70(6).
Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court's actions in conducting portions of the proceeding ex parte and in issuing the protective order were supported by the court's written findings and were provident exercises of discretion (see People v Nash, ___ AD3d ___, 2020 NY Slip Op 00520; People v Bonifacio, ___ AD3d ___, 2020 NY Slip Op 00517).
ALAN D. SCHEINKMAN
Presiding Justice