From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Daily Gazette Company v. Harrigan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Nov 3, 1994
209 A.D.2d 767 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

Opinion

November 3, 1994


Seventeen-year-old respondent Amy Wood appeared before the County Court of Schenectady County and, responding to charges arising from the death of her newborn son, pleaded guilty to second degree manslaughter. At her sentencing hearing, Wood was declared a youthful offender, whereupon her attorney moved to have the remainder of the proceedings conducted in private. Respondent County Judge (hereinafter respondent), over objections from the press, granted the motion and cleared the courtroom before sentencing Wood. Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking to have respondent's determination annulled and to gain access to that portion of the transcript of the hearing which sets forth the terms of the sentence imposed.

Initially, we are not persuaded that the proceeding must be dismissed for failure to join the District Attorney of Schenectady County as a party. Contrary to respondent's assertion, CPLR 7804 (i) does not apply here, because petitioner was not a party to the underlying criminal action. Moreover, complete relief can be afforded the parties without involving, or inequitably affecting, the People, who neither initiated nor opposed the closure motion (see, CPLR 1001 [a]).

As petitioner correctly notes, the proceeding at issue involved a felony offense, and therefore CPL 720.15 (2), which generally vests the trial court with broad discretion to close youthful offender proceedings if the defendant consents, is inapplicable (see, CPL 720.15; Matter of Capital Newspapers Div. of Hearst Corp. v. Moynihan, 71 N.Y.2d 263, 265). Inasmuch as both Wood's application to close the courtroom, and the rationale given by respondent for doing so, were based on the discretionary closure authority conferred upon the court by CPL 720.15 (2) — no other basis for maintaining the secrecy of the proceedings having been advanced — petitioner is entitled to the relief sought (see, Matter of Capital Newspapers Div. of Hearst Corp. v. Moynihan, supra, at 272-273; see also, Matter of Gannett Westchester Rockland Newspapers v. LaCava, 158 A.D.2d 495, 496-497).

Mikoll, J.P., Mercure and Peters, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is annulled, without costs, and petition granted.


Summaries of

Matter of Daily Gazette Company v. Harrigan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Nov 3, 1994
209 A.D.2d 767 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
Case details for

Matter of Daily Gazette Company v. Harrigan

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of DAILY GAZETTE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. CLIFFORD T…

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

Date published: Nov 3, 1994

Citations

209 A.D.2d 767 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
618 N.Y.S.2d 469