From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Clapper v. Ragonese

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jul 6, 2000
274 A.D.2d 654 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

July 6, 2000.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Connor, J.), entered July 19, 1999 in Ulster County, which granted defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action.

Russell A. Schindler, Kingston, for appellant.

Ahmuty, Demers McManus (Christopher P. Cartier of counsel), Albertson, for respondents.

Before: Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Peters, Carpinello and Graffeo, JJ.


MEMORANDUM AND ORDER


Following a victim's identification of plaintiff from a photograph that had been covered by a CPL 160.50 sealing order, plaintiff was charged with public lewdness. The charge was ultimately dismissed and plaintiff thereafter brought this constitutional tort action to recover for defendants' alleged violation of CPL 160.50. Supreme Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint, plaintiff appeals and we affirm. Inasmuch as "a violation of CPL 160.50 `does not implicate constitutional considerations'" (Matter of Charles Q. v. Constantine, 85 N.Y.2d 571, 575, quoting People v. Patterson, 78 N.Y.2d 711, 716), it cannot form the basis for a constitutional tort action (cf., Brown v. State of New York, 89 N.Y.2d 172, 177-179).

Cardona, P.J., Peters, Carpinello and Graffeo, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.


Summaries of

Clapper v. Ragonese

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jul 6, 2000
274 A.D.2d 654 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

Clapper v. Ragonese

Case Details

Full title:PETER CLAPPER, Appellant, v. PAUL RAGONESE et al., Respondents

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

Date published: Jul 6, 2000

Citations

274 A.D.2d 654 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
711 N.Y.S.2d 790

Citing Cases

LINO v. CITY OF NEW YORK

42 USC § 1983 claim based on defendant's alleged failure to expunge records related to arrest]; Grandal v…

Lafortune v. The City of New York

Likewise, "a violation of CPL [§] 160.50, without more, does not require suppression of such evidence or…