From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Timothy Shader

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Nov 21, 1996
233 A.D.2d 717 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

Summary

granting parole applicant access to pre-sentence report but remanding to the County Court for review of report and redaction of any material that should be excepted from disclosure

Summary of this case from Rossney v. Travis

Opinion

November 21, 1996.

Appeal from an order of the County Court of Albany County (Breslin, J.), entered September 5, 1995, which denied petitioner's application pursuant to CPL 390.50 for a copy of his presentence report.

Berore: Mikoll, J.P., White, Casey and Yesawich Jr., JJ.


In 1995, petitioner's application for parole release was denied by the State Board of Parole. Petitioner filed a notice of appeal from said determination with the State Division of Parole and thereafter made a motion in Albany County Court, pursuant to CPL 390.50, to obtain a copy of his presentence report for use in connection with that appeal. County Court denied the motion and petitioner appeals.

We reverse. In Matter of Blanche v People ( 193 AD2d 991), we recognized that CPL 390.50 (1) permits disclosure of a presentence report in collateral proceedings upon a proper factual showing for the need thereof. Contrary to the conclusion reached by County Court, we are of the view that petitioner made such a showing inasmuch as a presentence report is one of the factors required to be considered by the Board of Parole upon application for release ( see, Executive Law § 259-i [a]; [2] [c]).

We disagree, however, with petitioner's assertion that he is automatically entitled to an unredacted copy of his presentence report. It has been consistently recognized that such reports consist of confidential material, which may be appropriately withheld from disclosure ( see, People v Perry, 36 NY2d 114; Holmes v State of New York, 140 AD2d 854; cf., CPL 390.50 [a]). Accordingly, upon remittal, County Court is directed to review petitioner's presentence report in camera to determine what portion, if any, should be redacted, except such portion from disclosure and set forth the reasons for its action ( see, People v Butler, 54 AD2d 56, 60-61).

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs, and matter remitted to the County Court of Albany County for further proceedings not inconsistent with this Court's decision.


Summaries of

In re Timothy Shader

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Nov 21, 1996
233 A.D.2d 717 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

granting parole applicant access to pre-sentence report but remanding to the County Court for review of report and redaction of any material that should be excepted from disclosure

Summary of this case from Rossney v. Travis
Case details for

In re Timothy Shader

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of TIMOTHY SHADER, Appellant, v. THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

Date published: Nov 21, 1996

Citations

233 A.D.2d 717 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
650 N.Y.S.2d 350

Citing Cases

People v. Delatorre

In contrast, both the Second and Third Departments have held that no statutory right exists for the…

People v. Delatorre

A review of the relevant case law reveals that it is well settled in the Third Department that in the absence…