Matter of Newsday, Inc., 97 N.Y.2d 651 (2001)
Orders issued by the Supreme Court in criminal proceedings, such as those concerning access to search warrant records, are generally not appealable to the Appellate Division or the Court of Appeals unless specifically authorized by statute.
Summary
Newsday sought to intervene in a criminal proceeding to gain access to records supporting the issuance of a search warrant. The New York Court of Appeals held that there was no statutory authority for the Court of Appeals to review the Supreme Court’s order regarding access to those records. The Court reasoned that Newsday’s application was part of a criminal investigation, rendering the Supreme Court’s order unappealable under the relevant criminal procedure law. The Court suggested alternative remedies, such as a Freedom of Information Law request or a civil proceeding, which could potentially lead to an appeal to the Court of Appeals.
Facts
Newsday, Inc., sought access to records supporting the issuance of a search warrant in a criminal investigation. The Supreme Court issued an order concerning this access. Newsday attempted to appeal this order.
Procedural History
Newsday appealed the Supreme Court’s order to the Appellate Division. The Appellate Division’s decision was then appealed to the New York Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals, sua sponte, dismissed the appeal, finding no statutory basis for its review.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals has statutory authority to review a Supreme Court order concerning access to records supporting a search warrant issued in a criminal proceeding.
Holding
No, because no statutory authority exists for the Court of Appeals to review the Supreme Court’s order in this criminal proceeding.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals based its decision on the principle that appellate review in criminal proceedings is limited to instances where it is explicitly authorized by statute. The Court determined that Newsday’s application to access search warrant records was part of a criminal investigation. Consequently, the Supreme Court’s order was deemed to have been issued in a criminal proceeding. Under CPL Article 450, such orders are not directly appealable to the Appellate Division, and under CPL 460.20 and 450.90, the Appellate Division’s order is not appealable to the Court of Appeals without specific statutory permission, which was lacking here.
The Court distinguished this situation from cases involving motions to quash subpoenas, which have historically been treated as final orders in special proceedings on the civil side of the court due to stare decisis, originating with People v. Doe, 272 N.Y. 473 (1936). However, the Court acknowledged the asymmetry in the support for that rule.
The Court highlighted that Newsday had alternative remedies available, such as filing a Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) request under Public Officers Law § 87 or initiating a civil proceeding under CPLR Article 78 at the trial court level. Appeals from such civil proceedings could potentially reach the Court of Appeals. Citing Matter of Gannett Co. v. De Pasquale, 43 N.Y.2d 370 (1977) and Matter of Associated Press v. Bell, 70 N.Y.2d 32 (1987), the Court emphasized that these avenues could provide a path for appellate review that was unavailable through a direct appeal in the criminal proceeding.
In essence, the Court emphasized the importance of adhering to statutory frameworks governing appellate jurisdiction and highlighted alternative legal pathways for seeking access to information in criminal investigations.