Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
People v. M.E.
Citations: 121 A.D.3d 157; 991 N.Y.S.2d 232
Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; August 8, 2014; New York; State Appellate Court
Criminal records are eligible for conditional sealing under CPL 160.58, even if the convictions occurred before the statute's effective date. The defendant, who was convicted in 1996 for criminal possession of a controlled substance and completed her sentence along with a drug treatment program, sought to seal her records in 2013. The People did not oppose her motion, affirming her eligibility for a Conditional Seal Order but leaving the final decision to the court. The court denied her request, arguing that CPL 160.58 could not be applied retroactively to pre-2009 convictions. Upon appeal, the court determined that the denial of the sealing motion was a civil matter, allowing for the defendant to appeal under CPLR 5701. The appellate court concluded that applying CPL 160.58 to pre-existing criminal records does not constitute retroactive application, as it merely restricts future access to those records without altering the original judgments or invalidating prior disclosures. Therefore, the timing of the underlying events does not preclude the eligibility for sealing under the statute. A statute is not considered retroactive simply because it applies to future transactions connected to past events. The Court of Appeals has emphasized the necessity of a clear legislative intent for retroactivity, which is not applicable in this case. Legislative history of CPL 160.58 indicates a limitation on the retroactive application of 12 other sections, but section (3) creating CPL 160.58 does not impose such restrictions. It pertains only to future access to existing criminal records with no retroactive provisions necessary. The text of CPL 160.58 allows for the sealing of records related to prior convictions if specific conditions are met, such as completing a sentence and a qualifying drug treatment program. In this case, the defendant meets these criteria, making her conviction eligible for sealing. Consequently, the prior order is reversed, and the matter is sent back to County Court to consider the discretionary factors outlined in CPL 160.58(3). Conditional sealing is not guaranteed; the final decision rests with the court's discretion, considering various factors. The appellate judges concur with this ruling.