Matter of Westchester Rockland Newspapers, Inc. v. Clyne, 49 N.Y.2d 702 (1980)
An appeal is considered moot unless the rights of the parties will be directly affected by the determination of the appeal, and the interest of the parties is an immediate consequence of the judgment; however, an exception exists for important and recurring issues that typically evade review.
Summary
The Albany Times-Union and one of its reporters, Shirley Armstrong, brought an Article 78 proceeding against Judge Clyne, seeking a declaration that his closure of a plea proceeding was illegal and an injunction against future closures without affording the press an opportunity to be heard. The Court of Appeals held that the appeal was moot because the transcript of the closed proceeding had already been furnished to the petitioners. While recognizing an exception to the mootness doctrine for recurring issues evading review, the Court found that the underlying principles had already been sufficiently addressed in prior decisions, specifically *Gannett* and *Leggett*.
Facts
Judge Clyne conducted a joint suppression hearing in a criminal case, closing it to the public and press. Armstrong, a reporter, observed the courtroom. She learned that Judge Clyne had closed a proceeding during which one of the defendants, Marathon, was expected to enter a plea. Armstrong requested a transcript of the plea proceeding, which the Judge refused. Marathon confessed his participation in the crime and implicated his codefendant, Du Bray. Later, Du Bray also pleaded guilty, and the petitioners were given the transcript of that closed proceeding.
Procedural History
The petitioners initiated an Article 78 proceeding in the Appellate Division, seeking a declaration that the closure was illegal and an injunction against future closures. The Appellate Division dismissed the petition, concluding the closure was a proper exercise of discretion. The petitioners then appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether the appeal of the closure of a plea proceeding is moot when the transcript of the proceeding has already been furnished to the petitioners.
Holding
No, the appeal is moot because the rights of the parties were no longer directly affected by the determination of the appeal. The Court reversed and remitted to the Appellate Division with directions to dismiss solely on the ground of mootness to prevent any legal consequences or precedent from arising from an unreviewable judgment.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals based its decision on the fundamental principle that courts should only decide actual controversies. An appeal is moot when the rights of the parties are no longer directly affected. Here, because the petitioners had already received the transcript, the issue was moot. The court acknowledged an exception to the mootness doctrine for important and recurring issues that evade review. However, the Court found that the principles governing fair trial-free press issues had already been largely declared in *Gannett* and *Leggett*. The court emphasized the importance of judicial restraint and incremental development of the common law. The Court distinguished the case from situations involving closure of trials versus pretrial proceedings, reaffirming the presumption that judicial proceedings are open to the public. The court also noted that the trial court’s decision occurred before the Court of Appeals decision in *Leggett*, which detailed the procedure to be followed when closure of a criminal proceeding is requested. The Court stated, “At the present time, in fact in most criminal cases, there are only pretrial proceedings. Thus if the public is routinely excluded from all proceedings prior to trial, most of the work of the criminal courts will be done behind closed doors”. The court decided that it should supervise dispositions made by lower courts after the applicable principles have been declared rather than retroactively appraising conduct of trial judges that preceded such declarations.