The youthful offender statutes (CPL article 720) provide special measures for persons found to be youthful offenders, which " ‘emanate from a legislative desire not to stigmatize youths between the ages of 16 and 19 with criminal records triggered by hasty or thoughtless acts which, although crimes, may not have been the serious deeds of hardened criminals’ " ( Matter of Capital Newspapers Div. of Hearst Corp. v. Moynihan, 71 N.Y.2d 263, 268, 525 N.Y.S.2d 24, 519 N.E.2d 825, quoting People v. Drayton, 39 N.Y.2d 580, 584, 385 N.Y.S.2d 1, 350 N.E.2d 377 ; seeCastiglione v. James F.Q., 115 A.D.3d 696, 981 N.Y.S.2d 801 ).

In keeping with the statutory goal that eligible youths not be stigmatized by a youthful offender adjudication, CPL 720.35 directs that records relating to the prosecution be sealed."[A] person adjudicated a youthful offender may refuse to answer questions regarding the charges and police investigation, whether he or she pleaded guilty, and whether a youthful offender adjudication was made" ( Castiglione v. James F.Q., 115 A.D.3d 696, 697, 981 N.Y.S.2d 801 ; see Matter of Barnett v. David M.W., 22 A.D.3d 575, 576, 802 N.Y.S.2d 711 ; State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Bongiorno, 237 A.D.2d 31, 35, 667 N.Y.S.2d 378 ). However, "not all of the information contained within the protected records is necessarily privileged" ( Matter of Barnett v. David M.W., 22 A.D.3d at 576, 802 N.Y.S.2d 711 ).

We also reject defendant's contention that the court erred in ordering him pursuant to CPLR 3124 to provide authorizations to access records related to defendant's youthful offender adjudication in this matter. Under CPL 720.35(2), "all official records and papers concerning the [youthful offender] adjudication are sealed" ( Castiglione v. James F.Q., 115 A.D.3d 696, 697, 981 N.Y.S.2d 801 ). Nevertheless, "[a]s with other privileges, the privilege of CPL 720.35(2) is waived ‘where the individual affirmatively places the information or conduct in issue’ " (id., quoting Green v. Montgomery, 95 N.Y.2d 693, 700, 723 N.Y.S.2d 744, 746 N.E.2d 1036 ; see Auto Collection, Inc. v. C.P., 93 A.D.3d 621, 623, 939 N.Y.S.2d 541 ; Pink v. Ricci, 74 A.D.3d 1773, 1774, 903 N.Y.S.2d 632 ).

B. The Youthful Offender Statutes: CPL Article 720 The youthful offender statutes (CPL article 720) provide special measures for persons found to be youthful offenders, which "'emanate from a legislative desire not to stigmatize youths between the ages of 16 and 19 with criminal records triggered by hasty or thoughtless acts which, although crimes, may not have been the serious deeds of hardened criminals'" (Matter of Capital Newspapers Div. of Hearst Corp. v Moynihan, 71 N.Y.2d 263, 268, quoting People v Drayton, 39 N.Y.2d 580, 584; see Castiglione v James F.Q., 115 A.D.3d 696). As explained by the Court of Appeals, youthful offender status under CPL article 720 is "determined only after [the] defendant has been tried and convicted criminally" (Matter of Capital Newspapers Div. of Hearst Corp. v Moynihan, 71 N.Y.2d at 268; see People v Francis, 30 N.Y.3d at 748).

Thus, when a youth is granted YO status, "all official records and papers, whether on file with the court, a police agency or the [DCJS]" relating to the YO adjudication are rendered confidential ( CPL 720.35[2] ; Matter of Capital Newspapers Div. of Hearst Corp. v. Moynihan, 71 N.Y.2d 263, 268, 525 N.Y.S.2d 24, 519 N.E.2d 825 [1988] ). Such records remain confidential and they "may not be made available to any person or public or private agency," except where required or permitted by law or court order, or unless the statutory privilege is waived, for instance by the youthful offender affirmatively placing the information or conduct at issue in a civil action ( CPL 720.35[2] ; Castiglione v. James F.Q., 115 A.D.3d 696, 697, 981 N.Y.S.2d 801 [2d Dept. 2014] ). Consistent with this public policy, the legislature has generally exempted YO status from the reach of the Executive Law.

Aside from imposing a lesser punishment, a further objective of a YO finding is to protect a youth from having an historical record of criminal behavior arising from the circumstances underlying the YO. Thus, when a youth is granted YO status, "all official records and papers, whether on file with the court, a police agency or the [DCJS]" relating to the YO adjudication are rendered confidential (CPL 720.35[2]; Matter of Capital Newspapers Div. of Hearst Corp. v Moynihan, 71 NY2d 263, 268 [1988]). Such records remain confidential and they "may not be made available to any person or public or private agency," except where required or permitted by law or court order, or unless the statutory privilege is waived, for instance by the youthful offender affirmatively placing the information or conduct at issue in a civil action (CPL 720.35[2]; Castiglione v James F.Q., 115 AD3d 696, 697 [2d Dept 2014]).

Thus, when a youth is granted YO status, "all official records and papers, whether on file with the court, a police agency or the [DCJS]" relating to the YO adjudication are rendered confidential ( CPL 720.35[2] ; Matter of Capital Newspapers Div. of Hearst Corp. v. Moynihan, 71 N.Y.2d 263, 268, 525 N.Y.S.2d 24, 519 N.E.2d 825 [1988] ). Such records remain confidential and they "may not be made available to any person or public or private agency," except where required or permitted by law or court order, or unless the statutory privilege is waived, for instance by the youthful offender affirmatively placing the information or conduct at issue in a civil action ( CPL 720.35[2] ; Castiglione v. James F.Q., 115 A.D.3d 696, 697, 981 N.Y.S.2d 801 [2d Dept. 2014] ). Consistent with this public policy, the legislature has generally exempted YO status from the reach of the Executive Law.

In contrast, youthful offender adjudications can only follow a criminal conviction. Comparing the relevant sealing provisions of the Family Court Act and the Criminal Procedure Law, it is clear that while evidence from juvenile delinquency proceedings is inadmissible in judicial proceedings, with an exception permitted only for sentencing in a criminal action (see Family Ct. Act § 381.21 ), sealed youthful offender adjudications may be made available if there is specific statutory or judicial authorization to do so (see CPL 720.352; see also Castiglione v. James F.Q., 115 A.D.3d 696, 697, 981 N.Y.S.2d 801; Matter of Barnett v. David M.W., 22 A.D.3d 575, 576–577, 802 N.Y.S.2d 711). Thus, as the People correctly contend, the statutory restrictions on the use of juvenile delinquency records addressed by this Court in Campbell are significantly different from the statutory restrictions on the use of youthful offender adjudications.

Notwithstanding the failure of either respondent to oppose the motion, it is denied.The youthful offender statute (CPL Article 720) provides special measures for persons found to be youthful offenders, which emanate from a legislative desire not to stigmatize youths with criminal records triggered by hasty or thoughtless acts which, although crimes, may not have been the serious deeds of hardened criminals (seeMatter of Capital Newspapers Div. of Hearst Corp. v. Moynihan , 71 NY2d 263 [1988] ; Castiglione v. James, F.Q. 115 AD3d 696 [2d Dept 2014] ). Consequently, a youthful offender adjudication is not a judgment of conviction for a crime or any other offense ( CPL 720.35[1] ; Castiglione v. James, F.Q., supra ).

Lastly, "a hallmark of the juvenile justice system is that a delinquency adjudication cannot constitute a criminal conviction and a juvenile delinquent cannot be denominated a criminal" (Green, 95 NY2d at 698; see also Holyoke Mutual Insurance Co. v. Jason B., 184 AD2d 550, 552 [1992]; Matter of Andre B., 215 AD2d 159, 160 [1995]; Webb v. State of New York, 18 AD3d 648, 649 [2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 707 [2006]). Similar protections are afforded to youth between the ages of 16 and 19 who are adjudicated to be youthful offenders at sentencing in a criminal action ( see Castiglione v. James F. Q., 115 AD3d 696, 696-697 [2014]; People v. Francis, 137 AD3d 91, 93-94 [2016]). However, contrary to the public policy embodied in Family Court Act §380.1, an unsealed record relating to an adjudication of juvenile delinquency could conceivably have the unintended effect of prejudicing the future endeavors of a rehabilitated young person (see Kristin Henning, Eroding Confidentiality in Delinquency Proceedings: Should Schools and Public Housing Authorities be Notified?, 79 NYU L Rev 520 [2004] [noting potential for lasting stigma attached to juvenile delinquency adjudications]; Robin Walker Sterling, Fundamental Unfairness: In re Gault and the Road Not Taken, 72 Md L Rev 607, 660-662 [2013]