See, Matter of Skyline Inn Corp. v. New YorkLiq, Auth., 44 N.Y.2d 695 (1978); Property Clerk of N.Y. City Police Dept. v. Taylor, 237 A.D.2d 119 (1st Dept 1997); Trinity Preservation, L.P. v. Roman, 46 Mise 3d 140(A) (App Term 1st Dept 2015).

The sealing statute does not prevent the officer from testifying from his independent memory of the events if he has one, or from attempting to refresh that memory through a review of documents that were not sealed, which might include ACS case notes of an interview with the police officer, the officer's own memo book, or other records regarding the relevant events. See, 53rd St. Rest. Corp. v. New York State Liq. Auth., 220 A.D.2d 588, 632 N.Y.S.2d 815 [2d Dept.1995] ; Prop. Clerk of New York City Police Dept. v. Taylor, 237 A.D.2d 119, 120, 654 N.Y.S.2d 745 [1st Dept.1997]. This ruling will require ACS attorneys to monitor the status of the corresponding criminal case, which is the best practice in any event given the overlapping issues involved, and, upon learning that a sealing order has been issued, instruct any police witnesses not to review any sealed documents before giving testimony in Family Court.

The sealing statute does not prevent the officer from testifying from his independent memory of the events if he has one, or from attempting to refresh that memory through a review of documents that were not sealed, which might include ACS case notes of an interview with the police officer, the officer's own memo book, or other records regarding the relevant events. See, 53rd St. Rest. Corp. v New York State Liq. Auth., 220 AD2d 588 [2d Dept 1995]; Prop. Clerk of New York City Police Dept. v Taylor, 237 AD2d 119, 120 [1st Dept 1997]. This ruling will require ACS attorneys to monitor the status of the corresponding criminal case, which is the best practice in any event given the overlapping issues involved, and, upon learning that a sealing order has been issued, instruct any police witnesses not to review any sealed documents before giving testimony in Family Court. Petitioner has cited People v Patterson, 78 NY2d 711, 713 [1991] and In re Quadon H., 55 AD3d 834, 834 [2d Dept 2008] as support for their argument that the police officer may use sealed documents to prepare for his testimony in Family Court.

The Appellate Division arguably went even further in Property Clerk of N.Y. City Police Dept. v Taylor, 237 AD2d 119 (1st Dep't 1997). There the appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision granting a post-trial motion to dismiss an action seeking forfeiture of defendant's automobile.