Defendant's unopposed motion for an order, to seal all of the the records of the above captioned action, pursuant to CPL §160.50, is decided as follows:

The defendant was arraigned on November 7, 1994 and charged with forgery in the second degree, a Class D felony. In 1995 the People filed a prosecutor's information charging the defendant with two A misdemeanors; criminal possession of stolen property and petit larceny. On June 21, 1995 the People made an offer to allow the defendant to plead to one count of violating P.L. 240.20(7), (Disorderly Conduct), in satisfaction of both misdemeanor charges. The People's offer was conditioned, inter alia, on the defendant's waiver of his rights to have the record of his conviction sealed pursuant to CPL §160.55. [*2]

The defendant attests that his arrest in November of 1994 was his first and only contact with the criminal justice system. He states that despite the fact that the minutes of his plea and sentence indicate that he knowingly waived his right to sealing "it was never explained to me that the record of this offense would follow me for the rest of my life."

Counsel for the defendant states that the defendant was advised by his attorney in 1995 that "there would be no lasting consequences beyond the fact that a search would reveal that he had been arrested but not convicted of a crime." Counsel states that despite this promise the defendant suffered immediate consequences and continues to suffer from consequences associated with his conviction "as of the date of this motion."

At the time of his arrest Mr Siddons was in his last semester at Adelphi University. Upon receiving notification of his arrest the university suspended Mr Siddons. In response to his suspension the defendant filed a lawsuit against the university. The suit was eventually settled in Mr Siddons favor. The attorney who represented Mr Siddons in the instant action represented him in the suit against Adelphi and then failed to turn over the proceeds of the settlement to Mr Siddons. Mr Siddons filed a grievance against his attorney and " was eventually compensated from the New York State Lawyers Fund." In the interim Mr Siddons transferred to SUNY Purchase. In the years following his graduation the defendant developed expertise in various computer and technical areas and obtained multiple certifications. He now specializes in the air line industry.

The defendant attests, that based on his conviction in 1994, he "has been repeatedly subjected to further scrutiny and more background checks than any of my colleagues." He provided a list of numerous airports where he has repeatedly been denied access from November 2006 to the present. He states that his career and his "entire livelihood" depend on his ability to " pass background checks to obtain security clearance" and the record of his conviction in this case has repeatedly caused him to be subjected to heightened scrutiny which has negatively affected his ability to perform his job.

My career path has taken me to the point where it's over 80% travel.

I have to constantly go through background checks to gain access

to secure areas of the airport which require security clearance. This

security screening is above and beyond normal screening that a

frequent traveler would have to go through for access at any airport.

These clearances require fingerprinting and background threat analysis.

I have not been in the criminal justice system since my arrest in 1994.

During my application process in 2001 I was fingerprinted and received

the FBI version of my record and I learned that the records of the [*3]

disposition of my case are not sealed and open to inspection by anyone,

including potential employers such as the above. Although the minutes

of my plea and sentence indicate a knowing waiver it was never

explained to me that the record of this offense would follow me for

the rest of my life.

I am very concerned that these violation convictions, while not criminal,

could hamper my pending applications and future employment as they

have already had a negative impact on my professional and personal

life....

It's as such, it is my hope that these records could be sealed so as to

allow me to present myself in the most favorable manner possible

to my present and future employers.

The defendant submitted a copy of his FBI arrest record report in support of his application. Counsel for the defendant states that this document has repeatedly been "misread" because it appears to indicate that the defendant was convicted of a felony. The court has reviewed this document and finds that it could easily be subject to that misinterpretation.

MOTION FOR SEALING

The transcript of the defendant's guilty plea on June 21, 1995 make it clear that the Nassau County District Attorney's offer to allow the defendant to plead guilty to PL §240.20(7), a non-criminal charge, was conditioned upon the defendant "waiving his sealing rights." But for that condition the record of the defendant's conviction would have been sealed pursuant to CPL §160.55 and the defendant's fingerprints and any photographs taken of the defendant would have been returned to the defendant or destroyed.

In addition, CPL §160.55 (1)( c ) requires that all records "relating to the arrest and prosecution, ...on file with the division of criminal justice services, police agency or prosecutor's office shall be sealed and not made available to any person or public or private agency," (except for the specific provisions pf CPL §160.55[1][d]).

The defendant is now requesting that the records of this case be sealed pursuant to CPL §160.50. There is a significant distinction between a sealing pursuant to CPL §160.50 and CPL §160.55.Sealing pursuant to CPL §160.50 is required when a criminal action is terminated "in favor of the accused". Where a defendant is charged with a criminal offense, but is ultimately convicted of a violation, a on criminal offense, that a conviction does not constitute a termination in favor of the accused and is therefore not [*4]subject to sealing pursuant to CPL §160.50. However, sealing of the records of the conviction of the petty offense can be accomplished pursuant to CPL §160.55, People v Pettinato, 22 Misc 3d 140(A),(App Term 9th & 10th Jud. Dist., 2009).Notwithstanding the fact that the People required the defendant to waive his right to sealing under CPL§160.55 in 1994, they chose not to oppose the defendant's motion at this time.

In appropriate cases courts have the "inherent power" to seal their own records. Although this power is rarely exercised, courts have done so when it " was found warranted to protect those who might unjustly be injured by indiscriminate availability of records, "Matter of Hynes v Karassik, 47 NY2d 659,664, (1979).In the instant case, the court finds that the facts presented by the defendant in support of his instant application demonstrate that he has been unjustly injured by the indiscriminate availability of the records of his conviction of a non-criminal offense.

Accordingly, the defendant's motion is granted to the extent that the court hereby

Orders that the records in the instant matter shall be sealed pursuant to CPL §160.55.

This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.

_________________________

SONDRA K. PARDES

J.D.C.

Dated: Hempstead, New York

March 16, 2012