PEOPLE v. ADDISON (2022)

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Gregory Carro, J.), rendered July 5, 2018, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of assault in the first degree and aggravated vehicular assault, and sentencing him to an aggregate term of five years, unanimously affirmed.

Supreme Court properly found, in opposition to defendant's motion for a Wade hearing, that the People sufficiently met their burden establishing that the identification at issue was confirmatory and that no hearing was necessary (see generally People v. Rodriguez, 79 N.Y.2d 445, 451–453, 583 N.Y.S.2d 814, 593 N.E.2d 268 [1992]).  In their response to defendant's motion, the People argued that there was no improper police conduct and opposed the hearing asserting there was no possibility that any identification was tainted by police misconduct or was the result of police suggestion given the prior relationship between the identifying witness and defendant.  In further support, the People referred the motion court to the facts in the grand jury minutes which were submitted to the court for in camera review.  Supreme Court properly considered the evidence presented to the grand jury in denying the motion for a hearing (see People v. Thomas, 190 A.D.3d 591, 136 N.Y.S.3d 726 [1st Dept. 2021], lv denied 37 N.Y.3d 960, 147 N.Y.S.3d 541, 170 N.E.3d 415 [2021];  People v. Rodriguez, 47 A.D.3d 417, 849 N.Y.S.2d 232 [1st Dept. 2008], lv denied 10 N.Y.3d 816, 857 N.Y.S.2d 49, 886 N.E.2d 814 [2008]).  Further, our own in camera review of the grand jury transcript confirms the motion court's determination.

We see no reason to reconsider our previous denial of defendant's motion to expand the record to include the grand jury transcript and provide a copy to defendant.  A party seeking disclosure of grand jury minutes must demonstrate a compelling and particularized need for access sufficient to overcome the presumption of confidentiality and secrecy with regard to those proceedings (see CPL 190.25[4][a];  Matter of District Attorney of Suffolk County, 58 N.Y.2d 436, 444, 461 N.Y.S.2d 773, 448 N.E.2d 440 [1983]).  Defendant has failed to make such a showing.

We perceive no basis for reducing defendant's sentence, including his five-year term of postrelease supervision.