PEOPLE v. C.M., Defendant. (2026)

This case raises the issue of whether the materials related to a indictment that was dismissed pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law (“CPL”) § 30.30 should remain unsealed pending litigation against the defendant on a different indictment. The People have moved to continue the stay of the sealing of the dismissed indictment, and the defense opposes. The motion is decided as follows.

Defendant was arrested and charged on October 10, 2024 under indictment 71001-25 with grand larceny in the third degree in violation of Penal Law § 155.35(1), criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree in violation of Penal Law § 165.50, grand larceny in the fourth degree in violation of Penal Law § 155.30(1) and criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree in violation of Penal Law § 165.45(1). The indictment alleges that in April 2024, the defendant worked with a group to steal expensive handbags from a Louis Vuitton store in Manhattan. The indictment also includes an allegation that in October of 2024, the defendant stole additional expensive handbags from a Marc Jacobs store in the same Manhattan neighborhood.

On May 27, 2025, the defendant was charged under indictment 72714-25 with grand larceny in the second degree in violation of Penal Law § 155.40(1), criminal possession of stolen property in the second degree in violation of Penal Law § 165.52, attempted grand larceny in the second degree in violation of Penal Law §§ 110, 155.40, and two counts of attempted grand larceny in the third degree in violation of Penal Law §§ 110, 155.35(1). The allegations of this indictment were that in April 2025 a co-defendant stole handbags from a Celine store in Manhattan, and the defendant acted as the getaway driver, and that again in May of 2025 the defendant acted as a getaway driver during an attempted theft of a Rolex store in Manhattan. On September 17, 2025, this court dismissed indictment 71001-25 by granting the defense's application to deem the certificates of compliance and readiness invalid pursuant to CPL §§ 245.20 and 245.50(1) and dismiss the indictment under CPL § 30.30. The People then made an application to stay the sealing of indictment 71001-25, which this court granted over the defense's objection. On March 25, 2026, this court continued the sealing until the next appearance on April 30, 2026. On that date, the defense requested that indictment 7100-25 be sealed, and the People opposed. The court instructed the parties that if the People should wish to continue the stay of the unsealing, a formal motion should be filed. The People filed the instant motion on June 5, 2025, and the defense filed their response on August 27, 2026.

At the present time, the defendant is set to begin hearings and trials on indictment-72714-25 on October 7, 2026. The sealing of indictment 71001-25 remains stayed pending the outcome of this motion.

Analysis

First, although the People adamantly objected to the court instructing the People to make a formal motion in writing as the moving party, they have little basis to do so. As the court has explained in discussions on and off the record, it is the People's burden to request to stay the sealing of records pursuant to CPL § 160.50 (1), and as such it is their burden to apply to the court for this relief and make any supporting arguments. It is squarely within the court's discretion to determine how an application should be made, and the court requested it be in writing given the lengthy procedural history and the continued stay of sealing in this case.

As to the substance of the issue, the People assert that indictment 71001-25 should remain unsealed because it is legally permissible based on the facts and procedural history, that there is no remedy under the CPL to unseal an indictment for trial purposes, and that it would not cause the defendant undue prejudice for indictment 71001-25 to remain unsealed through the pendency of indictment 72714-25. The defense argues that the stay of the sealing is against the interests of justice and argues generally against any potential Molineux, Sandoval, or Perdue applications.

CPL § 160.50(1) mandates sealing the record of actions that terminate in favor of the accused, but permits the People or the court an opportunity to stay the sealing of the records in the interests of justice. See also People v Anonymous, 34 NY3d 631, 641 (2020) citing Matter of Katherine B., 5 NY3d 196 (2005) (explaining that the interest of justice standard applies only when moving to stay the sealing of records). CPL § 160.50 aims to restore defendants to the same status as though they had never been accused, and to prevent accused persons from being discriminated against in every aspect of their life based on mere accusations. See Lino v. City of New York, 101 AD3d 552 at 556 (1st Dept 2012).

CPL § 160.50(3)( ) provides a list of scenarios which qualify as “termination in favor of the accused” and includes when the accusatory instrument was dismissed pursuant to CPL § 210.20 and the People have not appealed from such order. Given that the People did not appeal, this case did terminate in favor of C.M. when this court dismissed the indictment, and the case will eventually be sealed as policy intended. But first this court must consider the interconnections of the facts of the defendant's two indictments. The court does not minimize the importance of wiping the defendant's record of indictment 71001-25, and does not find at all persuasive the People's argument that because C.M. has one case open he will not suffer additional adverse consequences by having a second case file remain open. (Motion, p. 16.) Potential employers may well be able to accept a singular criminal indictment on his record, but draw the line at a second one—even one not prosecuted. However, in weighing the interests of justice and the prosecution of indictment 72714-25, both sides raise legitimate issues regarding potential Molineux and Sandoval applications at trial. The People's primary argument for keeping the records unsealed is that they may legally request to present evidence from the prior case under Molineaux and Sandoval theories. Upon reviewing the parties' arguments, it is clear that those will be complex issues, particularly as the People's arguments in support of Molineaux evidence are not unlike the issues addressed in People v. Weinstein, 42 NY3d 439 (2024); the Court of Appeals made evident that propensity evidence is not permissible absent a clear connection to a material issue in the case. Id. at 455.

While intent and motive are less of an issue in a grand larceny case involving luxury goods, there may be legitimate arguments regarding commission, scheme, or identity. Id. at 457. The prosecution will argue that the pattern of luxury goods store heists with co-conspirators shows a common scheme and definitively establishes C.M.'s identity as one of the perpetrators. Whether the allegations from indictment 71001-25 do rise to the level of establishing a common scheme or identity, or would merely equate to propensity evidence may be a fine line.

The Sandoval argument is also complicated given that defendant's criminal history includes a prior conviction of the same nature, but no crimes directly implicating dishonesty. While the defense says they have not raised any affirmative defenses, until the conclusion of the trial that possibility still exists, and the trial court would need to determine if evidence of the uncharged crime should be admitted. See People v. Cass, 18 NY3d 553 (2012). The record from indictment 71001-25 may be salient both for the People to make any Molineux or Sandoval applications, and for the defense to adequately argue against any such applications. Even if no such applications are made, the trial may raise other factual issues that might implicate the dismissed case.

Accordingly, the court grants the People's application to stay the sealing until consideration by the trial judge, who may need this information to make significant evidentiary determinations. The sealing of indictment 7001-25 is stayed until the disposition of indictment 72714-25. This is the decision and order of the court.

April A. Newbauer, J.