Supreme Court, Queens County, March 4, 2020

Melinda Katz, District Attorney, Kew Gardens (Rebecca Borges of counsel), for plaintiff.

Edward Muccini, Little Neck, for defendant.

On January 15, 2020, the People filed a certificate of compliance pursuant to CPL 245.50 and announced ready for trial on indictment No. 2680/19, People of the State of New York v Kevin Alexander. On February 18, 2020, the defendant's attorney argued that the People were not in compliance with their discovery obligations because he had not received a copy of the 911 call for one of the alleged incidents. After investigating, the People found that the 911 call and some related paper work had inadvertently been sealed by operation of law after the case against an individual who had been arrested in error was dismissed; in essence, the police department had arrested another man with the same name, who was not the actual perpetrator of the charged crimes, and when that was discovered, the case against that man was dismissed. As a result, the 911 call and some paper work, which are relevant to this case, were inadvertently sealed. Accordingly, the matter was adjourned so that the People could obtain and disclose the 911 call and any other outstanding discovery.

In the afternoon of February 18, 2020, this court signed an unsealing order for the 911 call and related paper work which had been sealed. On February 24, 2020, the People indicated that they had obtained the 911 call, radio runs, and Sprint report which had been sealed, and had turned that information over to the defendant's attorney. However, the People asked this court whether it was proper, in light of People v Anonymous (34 NY3d 631 [2020]), decided on February 18, 2020, for them to have unsealed and turned over those items.

The newly-enacted CPL 245.20 (1) requires the People to disclose to the defendant "all items and information that relate to the subject matter of the case." Furthermore, CPL 245.20 (1) (e) requires the People to turn over "[a]ll statements, written or recorded or summarized in any writing or recording, made by persons who have evidence or information relevant to any offense charged or to any potential defense thereto." Finally, the statute, in paragraph (g), demands that the People disclose "[a]ll tapes or other electronic recordings, including all electronic recordings of 911 telephone calls made or received in{**67 Misc 3d at 622} connection with the alleged criminal incident." Clearly the 911 call made in connection with the assault of the complainant is subject to mandatory disclosure under all of the above subsections of the new discovery law.

The purpose of the sealing requirement of CPL 160.50 is to lessen the adverse consequences of unsuccessful criminal prosecutions by limiting access to official records and papers in criminal proceedings which terminate in favor of the accused. (Matter of Katherine B. v Cataldo, 5 NY3d 196 [2005], citing Matter of Harper v Angiolillo, 89 NY2d 761 [1997]; Anonymous at 637.) The general proscription against releasing sealed records and materials is subject to those exceptions set forth in the statute. (CPL 160.50 [1] [d] [i]-[vi].)

In addition to one of those six exceptions, courts have recognized certain other compelling circumstances when unsealing is permissible, upon a demonstration of extraordinary circumstances, or a legal mandate which would be impossible to fulfill without unsealing criminal records. (Matter of Dondi, 63 NY2d 331, 338 [1984]; Matter of Hynes v Karassik, 47 NY2d 659 [1979].) Significantly, a court has inherent discretionary authority over its "own records insofar as they pertain to the business of the court and when essential to the proper administration of justice." (Hynes at 664.)

In this case, there exists both a legal mandate and an extraordinary circumstance warranting the unsealing of the records in question. The People are under a legal mandate, pursuant to CPL 245.20, to provide the requested materials to the defense. Certainly, a 911 call, radio runs, and the Sprint report are important and necessary for a defendant to have in preparation for trial. This court has been presented with the unique situation where material had been inadvertently sealed as a protection for an innocent person, that could work against the interest of a person now facing trial for the serious charge of attempted murder. The sealing statute cannot be meant to allow such an absurd result as rendering unsealing impermissible; indeed, "[t]he words of the statute do not support the conclusion that the protections of CPL 160.50 must be mechanically applied." (Anonymous at 660 [DiFiore, J., dissenting].)

Courts have a measure of discretionary authority "with respect to their own records insofar as they pertain to the business of the court and when essential to the proper administration of justice." (Hynes at 664.) In this case, the 911 call and related paper work should not have been sealed. Only the paper{**67 Misc 3d at 623} work relating to the person who was incorrectly arrested should have been. Instead, this material should have been readily available to the prosecution, who in turn should have disclosed it to the defense.

Based on the legal mandate involved in this case, plus the extraordinary circumstances involved, this court finds that People v Anonymous is inapposite to the case at bar. Here, the court has not unsealed a dismissed case to be used against the person whose case had been sealed; rather, the court has unsealed certain paper work in a sealed case to fulfill a legal mandate of the Criminal Procedure Law, as well as guarantee a fair trial for the defendant before the court, at his request.

The rights of the person for whom the case was sealed will be preserved by this court's order to reseal the arrest paper work pertaining to him which is unrelated to the case at bar. Simply put, the court is undoing a clerical error.

The People's application to unseal the records of an individual who had been arrested in error, for the purposes of obtaining paper work which is relevant to the trial which is about to commence, is granted. The People have been ordered to disclose this paper work and information to the defendant as prescribed in CPL 245.20. In addition, the court orders the immediate resealing of the arrest paper work and court file as to the person who was arrested in error.