osure of grand jury evidence have uniformly done so for some purpose other than generalized public interest and dissemination ( see People v. Di Napoli, 27 N.Y.2d 229, 316 N.Y.S.2d 622, 265 N.E.2d 449; Matter of Quinn, 293 N.Y. 787, 58 N.E.2d 730; Matter of Aiani v. Donovan, 98 A.D.3d at 973–974, 950 N.Y.S.2d 745; Matter of Scotti, 53 A.D.2d 282, 385 N.Y.S.2d 659; People v. Werfel, 82 Misc.2d 1029, 372 N.Y.S.2d 510 [Sup.Ct., Queens County]; cf. People v. Cipolla, 184 Misc.2d 880, 711 N.Y.S.2d 303). Despite the intense public interest in this case, which this Court recognizes, the Supreme Court properly determined that the appellants' reasons do not constitute a compelling and particularized need for disclosure of the requested grand jury materials ( see Matter of District Attorney of Suffolk County, 58 N.Y.2d 436, 461 N.Y.S.2d 773, 448 N.E.2d 440; Matter of Police Commr. of City of N.Y. v. Victor W., 37 A.D.3d at 722, 830 N.Y.S.2d 323; Matter of Hynes [Patrolmen's Benevolent Assn.], 179 A.D.2d 760, 579 N.Y.S.2d 117; Ruggiero v. Fahey, 103 A.D.2d 65, 478 N.Y.S.2d 337; Matter of Carey [Fischer], 68 A.D.2d 220, 416 N.Y.S.2d 904; Matter of Carey, 45 Misc.3d 187, 988 N.Y.S.2d 852; Matter of NYP Holdings, 196 Misc.2d 708, 766 N.Y.S.2d 477 [Sup.Ct., Kings County]; Matter of Grand Jury Investigation, 139 Misc.2d 282, 529 N.Y.S.2d 253 [Sup.Ct., Bronx County]; Matter of Third Extraordinary Special Grand Jury, Convened Pursuant to Exec. Orders Nos. 42 & 43 of 1976, 118 Misc.2d 93, 459 N.Y.S.2d 1002 [Sup.Ct., Onondaga County] ).

ny conventional definition of that word. Rather, the application before this Court is one for the unsealing and public revelation of such grand jury evidence as is quoted, paraphrased, or referenced in the Meyer Report, for the public's information and supposed edification, but not really for anyone's (except historians') use. Therefore, the cases that are by far most pertinent to the resolution of the instant application are the prior decisions of Justice Ball and of the Fourth Department in prior iterations of this very matter (see Matter of Carey [Fischer], 68 AD2d 220, affg 92 Misc 2d 916), as well as other decisions concerned with the public dissemination of grand jury evidence (see e.g. Matter of NYP Holdings, Inc, 196 Misc 2d 708, 712 [Sup Ct Kings County 2003] [court denied application by news media for public release of grand jury evidence consisting of video and audio tapes of suspects in still pending court-corruption case]; Matter of Hynes [Patrolmen's Benevolent Assn.], 179 AD2d 760 [2d Dept 1992], lv denied 79 NY2d 757 [1992] [court denied District Attorney's application for public release of minutes and records of grand jury that had declined to indict Lubavitcher whose vehicle struck and killed African-American child, sparking Crown Heights riots]; see also Lindsay, 188 Misc 2d 757, supra [court permitted disclosure of grand jury minutes in65-year-old capital case for purpose of writing movie screenplay). Nevertheless, all of the cases cited hereinabove, especially the Court of Appeals' decisions, are highly instructive for what they reveal about how legally difficult it is for public officials, even those engaged in law enforcement, to access and use presumptively secret grand jury evidence even for a specific and demonstrably important governmental purpose.

Therefore, the cases that are by far most pertinent to the resolution of the instant application are the prior decisions of Justice Ball and of the Fourth Department in prior iterations of this very matter ( see Matter of Carey [Fischer ], 68 A.D.2d 220, 416 N.Y.S.2d 904,affg.92 Misc.2d 316, 402 N.Y.S.2d 100), as well as other decisions concerned with the public dissemination of grand jury evidence ( see e.g. Matter of N.Y.P. Holdings, Inc., 196 Misc.2d 708, 712, 766 N.Y.S.2d 477 [Sup.Ct., Kings County 2003] [court denied application by news media for public release of grand jury evidence consisting of video and audio tapes of suspects in still pending court-corruption case]; Matter of Hynes [Patrolmen's Benevolent Assn.], 179 A.D.2d 760, 579 N.Y.S.2d 117 [2d Dept.1992],lv. denied79 N.Y.2d 757, 583 N.Y.S.2d 193, 592 N.E.2d 801 [1992] [court denied District Attorney's application for public release of minutes and records of grand jury that had declined to indict Lubavitcher whose vehicle struck and killed African–American child, sparking Crown Heights riots]; see also Lindsay, 188 Misc.2d 757, 729 N.Y.S.2d 608, supra [court permitted disclosure of grand jury minutes in 65–year–old capital case for purpose of writing movie screenplay). Nevertheless, all of the cases cited hereinabove, especially the Court of Appeals' decisions, are highly instructive for what they reveal about how legally difficult it is for public officials, even those engaged in law enforcement, to access and use presumptively secret grand jury evidence even for a specific and demonstrably important governmental purpose.

Decided April 2, 1992 Appeal from (2d Dept: 179 A.D.2d 760) MOTIONS FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL GRANTED OR DENIED

People v. Robinson, 98 N.Y.2d 755, 751 N.Y.S.2d 843, 781 N.E.2d 908 ; People v. Fetcho, 91 N.Y.2d at 769, 676 N.Y.S.2d 106, 698 N.E.2d 935 ). Here, the petitioner's speculative assertions in support of the petition failed to set forth the compelling and particularized need necessary to overcome the presumption of confidentiality (see People v. Fetcho, 91 N.Y.2d 765, 676 N.Y.S.2d 106, 698 N.E.2d 935 ; Matter of District Attorney of Suffolk County, 58 N.Y.2d 436, 461 N.Y.S.2d 773, 448 N.E.2d 440 ; Matter of James v. Donovan, 130 A.D.3d 1032, 14 N.Y.S.3d 435 ; Yushavayev v. City of New York, 234 A.D.2d 289, 651 N.Y.S.2d 309 ; Matter of Hynes [Patrolmen's Benevolent Assn.], 179 A.D.2d 760, 579 N.Y.S.2d 117 ; Roberson v. City of New York, 163 A.D.2d 291, 557 N.Y.S.2d 431 ).The parties' remaining contentions either are without merit or have been rendered academic by our determination that the Supreme Court properly, in effect, denied the petition after finding that the petitioner failed to meet his threshold burden.

In any event, it is without merit ( see Matter of Katherine B. v Cataldo, 5 NY3d 196, 202-203; Matter of Joseph M. [New York City Bd. of Educ.], 82 NY2d 128, 133-134). The Commissioner failed to demonstrate under CPL 190.25 (4) (a) a "compelling and particularized need" for disclosure of the grand jury minutes as required by CPL 190.25 (4) (a) ( Matter of District Attorney of Suffolk County, 58 NY2d 436, 444; see Matter of Lustberg v Curry, 235 AD2d 615, 616; Matter of Hynes [Patrolmen's Benevolent Assn.], 179 AD2d 760, 760-761). Therefore, he was not entitled to have the Supreme Court engage in the discretionary balancing of the public interest in secrecy of the grand jury proceedings against the public interest in disclosure ( see Matter of District Attorney of Suffolk County, supra; Matter of Hynes [Patrolmen's Benevolent Assn.], supra at 761).

Public interest alone cannot satisfy the standard for "compelling and particularized need" (Id. ). Further, courts have ruled that to "quell the unrest, and to restore confidence in the grand jury system generally and in [the prosecutor's] office specifically," is also not enough of a "compelling and particularized need" to release grand jury minutes ( Matter ofJames v. Donovan , at 1038, 14 N.Y.S.3d 435, citing see Matter ofHynes [Patrolmen's Benevolent Assn.] , 179 A.D.2d 760, 579 N.Y.S.2d 117 [1992] ). Both the Donovan (the case involving the death of Eric Garner) and Hynes (Crown Heights incident involving the death of a seven year old child) addressed publicized cases in New York in which the courts ultimately declined to find a "compelling and particularized need" to release the grand jury minutes.

( Id.) And, in Matter of Hynes ( 179 A.D.2d 760 [2d Dept. 1992], lv. denied 79 N.Y.2d 757), the District Attorney of Kings County sought permission to release to the public the minutes and records of the grand jury that declined to indict an Hasidic man whose vehicle had struck and killed a seven-year-old African-American child. The incident sparked a civil disturbance that came to be known as the "Crown Heights riots."

(Id.) And, in Matter of Hynes (179 AD2d 760 [2d Dept 1992], lv denied 79 NY2d 757 [1992]), the District Attorney of Kings County sought permission to release to the public the minutes and records of the grand jury that declined to indict an Hasidic man whose vehicle had struck and killed a seven-year-old African-American child. The incident sparked a civil disturbance that came to be known as the "Crown Heights riots."

In order for the Grand Jury minutes to be released to the defendant, he must demonstrate a compelling and particular need for access that must be strong enough to overcome the presumption of confidentiality which applies equally to public as well as private litigants. (See, Matter of District Attorney of Suffolk County, 58 N.Y.2d 436; People v Judge, 88 A.D.2d 789 [4th Dept 1982]; Matter of Hynes, 179 A.D.2d 760 [2d Dept 1992].) Although the defendant has expressed some legitimate reasons for the release of the Grand Jury minutes, this court finds that those reasons are not so compelling and particularized so as to overcome the presumption of confidentiality — especially in light of the fact that administrative proceedings occur on a regular basis against police officers once they are the subject of a criminal indictment, as is the case herein.