From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Schittone

Supreme Court, Special Term, Schenectady County
Apr 6, 1976
86 Misc. 2d 576 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1976)

Opinion

April 6, 1976

Elbert Watrous, District Attorney (Dennis Englert of counsel), for plaintiff.

Frankel Frankel (Samuel P. Frankel of counsel), for defendant.

Salmon Wilkinson (Carl S. Salmon of counsel), for complaining witnesses.


The motions for inspection of the Grand Jury minutes in the above-entitled case are granted and inspection of the Grand Jury minutes will be permitted by both defendant and the complainants. The court's discretion is exercised with regard to the complainants' motion upon the reasoning in the case of People v Carignan ( 76 Misc.2d 515).

By their demand for the minutes and their expected use of them in pending civil litigation complainants waive the considerations of secrecy usually attached to such records for the benefit of witnesses testifying before a Grand Jury, and disclosure is therefore allowed to the defendant as well. By this circumstance this case is distinguished from the facts in Albert v Zahner's Sales Co. ( 51 A.D.2d 541). The District Attorney presents no facts which would indicate that third persons or the public interest will be adversely affected by this disposition.


Summaries of

People v. Schittone

Supreme Court, Special Term, Schenectady County
Apr 6, 1976
86 Misc. 2d 576 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1976)
Case details for

People v. Schittone

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Plaintiff, v. ROBERT V. SCHITTONE…

Court:Supreme Court, Special Term, Schenectady County

Date published: Apr 6, 1976

Citations

86 Misc. 2d 576 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1976)
385 N.Y.S.2d 703