From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Hynes

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 21, 1992
179 A.D.2d 760 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Opinion

January 21, 1992

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jones, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The District Attorney of Kings County seeks release to the general public of Grand Jury minutes and records concerning an investigation into the death of a seven-year-old black youth, who was struck by an automobile driven by an Hasidic man. He premises the application on the theories that release will both curb the community unrest which erupted when the Grand Jury failed to indict the driver of the automobile, and restore confidence in the Grand Jury system and in his office. Since those theories do not constitute the compelling and particularized need necessary to overcome the presumption of confidentiality which attaches to Grand Jury proceedings (see, CPL 190.25; see also, Matter of District Attorney of Suffolk County, 58 N.Y.2d 436), the Supreme Court properly denied the application. Moreover, since the petitioner failed to make the requisite initial showing, we do not reach the issue of whether the public's right to know overrides such factors as the chilling effect disclosure might have on future Grand Jury investigations of this nature (see, Matter of District Attorney of Suffolk County, supra; see also, People v. Di Napoli, 27 N.Y.2d 229). Bracken, J.P., Harwood, Lawrence and O'Brien, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Matter of Hynes

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 21, 1992
179 A.D.2d 760 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
Case details for

Matter of Hynes

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of CHARLES J. HYNES, as District Attorney of Kings County…

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

Date published: Jan 21, 1992

Citations

179 A.D.2d 760 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
579 N.Y.S.2d 117

Citing Cases

James v. Donovan

osure of grand jury evidence have uniformly done so for some purpose other than generalized public interest…

In re Carey

n before this Court is one for the unsealing and public revelation of such grand jury evidence as is quoted,…