Matter of Charles Q. v. Constantine, 85 N.Y.2d 571 (1995)
CPL 160.50 does not authorize a Board of Education to access sealed criminal records for use in a disciplinary hearing against a tenured teacher, even if the charges mirror the unsuccessful criminal prosecution.
Summary
This case addresses whether a Board of Education can access sealed criminal records of a teacher acquitted of criminal charges to use in a subsequent disciplinary proceeding. The New York Court of Appeals held that CPL 160.50, which mandates the sealing of records upon termination of a criminal action in favor of the accused, does not allow such access. The Court emphasized the statute’s intent to protect individuals from adverse consequences based on accusations and the narrow scope of exceptions allowing access to sealed records. Permitting access in this case would undermine the statute’s purpose and require legislative action rather than judicial interpretation.
Facts
Respondent, a tenured music teacher, was arrested and charged with misdemeanor possession of a controlled substance. He was acquitted by a jury, and the trial court sealed the records as required by CPL 160.50. Subsequently, the Board of Education initiated disciplinary proceedings against the respondent based on the same misconduct alleged in the criminal case. The Board sought a court order to unseal the criminal court records, arguing it needed the records for the disciplinary proceeding.
Procedural History
The Supreme Court granted the Board’s application to unseal the records, citing inherent discretionary power to do so in the interests of fairness and justice. The Appellate Division affirmed, relying on prior case law that suggested the need to protect the public through investigation and possible discipline. The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.
Issue(s)
Whether a Board of Education, a public agency not listed in CPL 160.50 (1) (d), is entitled to obtain sealed criminal records for use in a hearing under Education Law § 3020-a on charges brought against a tenured teacher.
Holding
No, because CPL 160.50 does not authorize access to sealed records for entities not explicitly listed in the statute, and the Board of Education does not fall under any of the enumerated exceptions. The court rejected the argument for an implied exception based on inherent power, finding it inconsistent with the statute’s intent and mandatory language.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals emphasized the mandatory language of CPL 160.50, stating that records "shall be sealed" upon termination of a criminal action in favor of the accused. It noted the narrow and specific exceptions to this rule, none of which include Boards of Education or teacher disciplinary proceedings. The Court reasoned that the legislative intent behind CPL 160.50 and Executive Law § 296 (16) was to remove any stigma associated with an accusation of criminal conduct terminated in favor of the accused. Allowing the Board access to the sealed records would undermine this purpose. The court distinguished prior cases that recognized an inherent power to unseal records, noting those cases involved the Appellate Division’s oversight of attorneys, a power specifically granted by Judiciary Law § 90 (2), which has no equivalent for teacher disciplinary proceedings. The Court stated, "If there is to be an exception to the general rule proscribing the release of sealed records — upon a showing of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ of the type alleged here — it should be created by the Legislature, not by the courts."