Opinion
06-09-2017
Roxanne WILLIAMS, Individually, and as Administratrix of the Estate of Hayden Blackman, Deceased, and as Parent of Infant T.R., Plaintiff–Respondent, v. CITY OF ROCHESTER, et al., Defendants. County of Monroe, Appellant.
Michael E. Davis, County Attorney, Rochester (Mallorie C. Rulison of Counsel), for Appellant. E. Robert Fussell, Leroy, for Plaintiff–Respondent.
Michael E. Davis, County Attorney, Rochester (Mallorie C. Rulison of Counsel), for Appellant. E. Robert Fussell, Leroy, for Plaintiff–Respondent.
PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., PERADOTTO, DeJOSEPH, NEMOYER, AND CURRAN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM:
This matter arises out of the fatal shooting of Hayden Blackman (decedent) by a City of Rochester (City) police officer. Plaintiff, who was decedent's wife, commenced an action in federal court against defendants, the City, the City of Rochester Police Department, and two police officers, seeking damages based on allegations that defendants, inter alia, violated decedent's constitutional rights and caused his wrongful death. Plaintiff subsequently moved in Supreme Court pursuant to CPLR 3101(a)(4) for an order requiring that nonparty municipality County of Monroe (County) and its District Attorney's Office disclose the testimony of any City employees who testified before the grand jury that investigated the shooting. The County appeals from an order granting plaintiff's motion and directing the County, upon being served with a judicial subpoena duces tecum issued pursuant to CPLR 2307, to "supply to the Court, to examine in-camera, for review and determination as to disclosure to counsel, the complete transcripts of each and every employee of the City of Rochester who testified at the Grand Jury presentation." We reverse.
We agree with the County that plaintiff failed to "demonstrat[e] ‘a compelling and particularized need for access' " to the grand jury materials (People v. Fetcho, 91 N.Y.2d 765, 769, 676 N.Y.S.2d 106, 698 N.E.2d 935 ; see Matter of District Attorney of Suffolk County, 58 N.Y.2d 436, 444, 461 N.Y.S.2d 773, 448 N.E.2d 440 ; see generally United States v. Procter & Gamble Co., 356 U.S. 677, 682, 78 S.Ct. 983, 2 L.Ed.2d 1077 ). Such a showing must be made in order to overcome the "presumption of confidentiality [that] attaches to the record of [g]rand [j]ury proceedings" (Fetcho, 91 N.Y.2d at 769, 676 N.Y.S.2d 106, 698 N.E.2d 935 ; see
District Attorney of Suffolk County, 58 N.Y.2d at 444, 461 N.Y.S.2d 773, 448 N.E.2d 440 ; see also CPL 190.25[4][a] ), and is a prerequisite to the court's exercise of its discretion in "balanc[ing] the public interest for disclosure against the public interest favoring secrecy" (Fetcho, 91 N.Y.2d at 769, 676 N.Y.S.2d 106, 698 N.E.2d 935 ; see District Attorney of Suffolk County, 58 N.Y.2d at 444, 461 N.Y.S.2d 773, 448 N.E.2d 440 ; see also People v. Di Napoli, 27 N.Y.2d 229, 234–235, 316 N.Y.S.2d 622, 265 N.E.2d 449 ). Here, plaintiff failed to establish that the discovery proceedings in federal court would not be sufficient to ascertain the facts and circumstances surrounding the shooting (see District Attorney of Suffolk County, 58 N.Y.2d at 445–446, 461 N.Y.S.2d 773, 448 N.E.2d 440 ).
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law without costs, and the motion is denied.