4 N.Y.3d 859 (2005)
A non-party cannot intervene in a criminal appeal; their recourse is to seek leave to appear as amicus curiae.
Summary
This case addresses whether a non-party, Hybrid Films, Inc., could intervene in a criminal appeal involving James Combest. Hybrid Films argued that it had a direct interest in the appeal’s outcome and lacked notice of the proceedings. The Court of Appeals held that the Criminal Procedure Law does not allow for non-party intervention in criminal cases. The court noted that Hybrid’s appropriate avenue would have been to seek amicus curiae status. Further, the court stated that Hybrid’s arguments regarding journalist privilege had already been raised and considered.
Facts
James Combest was the defendant in a criminal case. Hybrid Films, Inc., a non-party, claimed to have a direct interest in the outcome of Combest’s criminal appeal. Hybrid Films alleged it did not receive notice of the appeal.
Procedural History
Hybrid Films moved to intervene in the criminal appeal and sought reargument. The Court of Appeals considered Hybrid Films’ motion to intervene and for reargument.
Issue(s)
Whether a non-party can intervene in a criminal appeal under New York Criminal Procedure Law.
Holding
No, because the Criminal Procedure Law does not provide a mechanism for a non-party to intervene in or be joined in a criminal case.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals reasoned that the Criminal Procedure Law lacks any provision allowing a non-party to intervene in a criminal case. The court emphasized that a non-party’s proper course of action is to request permission to appear as amicus curiae, which allows them to supplement arguments on legal issues. The court further stated that in this case, the filing setting forth issues under consideration was available to the public and published, together with a solicitation for amici, in the New York Law Journal, giving Hybrid Films notice and opportunity to participate. Even so, the court noted that Hybrid’s arguments regarding journalist privilege were already advanced by the People and that their affidavits and memoranda of law had been considered. The court concluded that because Hybrid had no right to intervene, its motion for reargument was dismissed on the ground that Hybrid was not a party to the appeal.