Summary
This Appellate Division decision addresses whether video recordings of forensic interviews with children are subject to mandatory sealing under Criminal Procedure Law § 160.50 after related criminal charges were dismissed. The court held that the interviews, conducted by an independent Child Advocacy Center, do not constitute "official records" related to the father's arrest or prosecution. Consequently, the Administration for Children's Services may introduce the videos as evidence in a Family Court Act article 10 fact-finding hearing without violating the sealing statute.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the videotaped forensic interviews are "official records" subject to sealing under Criminal Procedure Law § 160.50 and therefore must be excluded from the Family Court proceeding.
Holdings
- The Court affirmed the lower court’s order denying the motion; the forensic‑interview videos are not "official records" within the meaning of CPL 160.50 and therefore are not subject to sealing and may be admitted.
Key quotations
“The father overlooks the plain language of CPL 160.50, which defines the records subject to sealing as being on file with the "division of criminal justice services, any court, police agency, or prosecutor's office." Neither ACS nor Safe Horizon are included in this list, and the father fails to explain why ACS, an agency with a different mission and a different burden of proof, cannot use the videotape.” (at 1)
Factual background
In October 2023 the children of the respondent father were videotaped in forensic interviews at a Manhattan Child Advocacy Center. The father was arrested and charged with first‑degree sex abuse, but the criminal charges were dismissed in July 2024. Administration for Children's Services (ACS) sought to introduce the videotaped interviews at a Family Court article 10 fact‑finding hearing, and the father moved to preclude the videos under CPL 160.50.
Procedural history
The Supreme Court, New York County entered an order on November 29, 2024 denying the father's motion to preclude the videos. The father appealed that order to the Appellate Division, First Department.