Opinion
2020-07842 Ind. 77897/91
01-26-2022
The People of the State of New York, respondent, v. Miguel DeFreitas, appellant.
Miguel DeFreitas, Wallkill, NY, appellant pro se. Anne T. Donnelly, District Attorney, Mineola, NY (Daniel Bresnahan and Andrea M. DiGregorio of counsel; Valerie Timmerman on the brief), for respondent.
Miguel DeFreitas, Wallkill, NY, appellant pro se.
Anne T. Donnelly, District Attorney, Mineola, NY (Daniel Bresnahan and Andrea M. DiGregorio of counsel; Valerie Timmerman on the brief), for respondent.
FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, J.P. SYLVIA O. HINDS-RADIX ROBERT J. MILLER LARA J. GENOVESI, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
In a proceeding to unseal grand jury minutes based on CPL 190.25(4)(a), Miguel DeFreitas appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Patricia A. Harrington, J.), entered October 2, 2020. The order, in effect, denied the petition.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Miguel DeFreitas was convicted in 1992 of attempted murder in the first degree, robbery in the first degree (two counts), criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and reckless endangerment in the first degree. The judgment of conviction was affirmed by this Court on appeal (see People v DeFreitas, 213 A.D.2d 96). In 2020, DeFreitas filed a petition to unseal a portion of the grand jury minutes based on CPL 190.25(4)(a), specifically, the legal instructions and charges given to the grand jury by the prosecutor. The Supreme Court, in effect, denied the petition. DeFreitas appeals.
"Pursuant to CPL 190.25(4)(a), grand jury proceedings are secret. As such, '[a] strong presumption of confidentiality applies to Grand Jury proceedings'" (Matter of Perryman v Gennaro, 147 A.D.3d 852, 852, quoting Roberson v City of New York, 163 A.D.2d 291, 291 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Fetcho, 91 N.Y.2d 765, 769). However, the rule of secrecy is not absolute (see People v Fetcho, 91 N.Y.2d at 769; Matter of James v Donovan, 130 A.D.3d 1032, 1036), and the presumption can be overcome only by a demonstration of "a compelling and particularized need for access to the Grand Jury material" (Matter of Perryman v Gennaro, 147 A.D.3d at 852 [internal quotation marks omitted]). "'Only if the compelling and particularized need threshold is met must the court then balance various factors to determine whether the public interest in the secrecy of the grand jury is outweighed by the public interest in disclosure'" (Matter of Perryman v Gennaro, 147 A.D.3d at 852, quoting Matter of James v Donovan, 130 A.D.3d at 1037; see People v Robinson, 98 N.Y.2d 755; People v Fetcho, 91 N.Y.2d at 769). Here, DeFreitas failed to demonstrate a compelling and particularized need for access to the grand jury minutes. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly, in effect, denied the petition.
CONNOLLY, J.P., HINDS-RADIX, MILLER and GENOVESI, JJ., concur.