Opinion
Motion No. 2023-05072 Ind. No. 75681/2022Case No. 2023-05845
12-05-2023
The People of the State of New York, v. Roland Codrington, Defendant.
Unpublished Opinion
MOTION DECISION
SEALED
BEFORE: Hon. Julio Rodriguez III Justice of the Appellate Division
ORDER
Hon. Julio Rodriguez III Associate Justice
An application having been made by defendant, pursuant to CPL 245.70(6), for expedited review of a ruling of a Justice of the Supreme Court, New York County (Felicia A. Mennin, J.), as set forth in a decision and protective order dated November 6, 2023, which granted the People's motion for a protective order, and, upon review, vacatur of the protective order to the extent it prohibits or delays the disclosure of certain information, including, inter alia, names and adequate contact information for more than two dozen witnesses, and
The People, by letter dated November 29, 2023, having consented to the disclosure of names and adequate contact information of the witnesses listed in items 6.b.ii through 6.b.vi and 6.c.iii through 6.c.v of the People's affirmation dated August 23, 2023, on an attorneys'-eyes-only basis, Now, upon reading and filing the papers with respect to the application, it is
Ordered that the application is granted, in part, to the extent that Supreme Court's decision and protective order is modified to direct that names and adequate contact information of the witnesses listed in items 6.b and 6.c.ii through 6.c.xv of the People's affirmation dated August 23, 2023, shall be disclosed on an attorneys'-eyes-only basis as of the date of this order's entry; and it is further
Ordered that the application is otherwise denied; and it is further
Ordered that, once disclosed, the information subject to this protective order shall be kept in the sole possession of defense counsel and shall not be copied, disseminated, or disclosed in any form, or by any means, by defense counsel, except to those employed by counsel or appointed to assist in the defense of the above-captioned criminal proceeding, or otherwise by court order, and shall not be used for any purpose other than in connection with preparing a defense in this matter; and it is further
Ordered that the restrictions on dissemination of the information directed to be disclosed herein apply not only to the information disclosed but also to information derived from it, including but not limited to any information provided by the identified witnesses; and it is further
Ordered that such restrictions shall remain in force until 30 days prior to a firm trial date; and it is further
Ordered that the other limitations placed by Supreme Court upon review and dissemination of the information and materials subject to this protective order remain in effect; and it is further
Ordered that the papers submitted in connection with the application are deemed to be filed under seal and shall continue to be sealed.
Under the circumstances, I find that Supreme Court erred to the extent it directed that disclosure of names and adequate contact information for the abovementioned witnesses be delayed until 30 days prior to trial. The People failed to establish good cause, based on the statutory factors in CPL 245.70(4), to withhold this information from defendant's counsel on an attorneys'-eyes-only basis. There is insufficient record support for the People's claim that permitting disclosure of this information on an attorneys'-eyes-only basis will increase any risk that the safety of the abovementioned witnesses may be endangered, or pose an increased risk of witness intimidation, harassment or embarrassment.
Dated: November 30, 2023