Preview
INDEX NO. 611214/2015 I
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 10/19/2018 10:53 AM
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 428 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/19/2018
li
n
I
I
"A"
EXHIBIT
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 10/19/2018 10:53 AM INDEX NO. 611214/2015
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 428 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/19/2018
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 0 7 / 2W1 1B21t /420191
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 410 RECEIVED NYSCEF: O7/18/2018
INDEX NO. 611214/2015
SUPREME COURT- STATEOFNEW YORK
I A.S.PART I2 -SUFFOLK COUNTY
P R E S E N T :
Hon. JohnH.Rouse
Acting Supreme Court Justice e-filed ful/ participation
SUZANNE SCHULMAN AS ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF
BRITTNEY M. SCHULMAN, DECEASED, ALICIA M OLGA
ARUNDEL,
LIPETS, MINDY GRABINA A/O/E AMY AND MlNDY
ORABfNA,
GRABlNA, INDIVIDUALLY,, STEVEN BARUCH A/O/E LAUREN
BARUCH, DECEASED, AND STEVEN BARUCH, INDIVIDUALLY,
JOELLE DIMONTE, MEL1SSA A CRAI, ARTHUR A BELLI JR AS PARENT
AND NATURAL GUARD1AN OF STEPHAN[.E.BELLI, DECEÂSED, AND
AS THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE E/O STEPHANIE.BELLlx
Plaintiffs
DECISION& ORDER
-against-
ULTIMATE CLASSLlMOUS1NE,.[NC., CARLOS F PINO, ROMEO DIMON
MARINE SERV1CE, INC., STEVEN TOWN OF
DROMEO, SOUT.HOLD,
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK, CABOT COACH BUILDERS, INC.D/B/A
ROYALE LIMOUSINE, XYZ COMPANIES I-5NAME BElNG FICTITIOUS
BUT INTENDED TO BE THE REMANUFACTURERS, D1STRIBUTORS,
AND/OR SELLERS OF THE 2007 LINCOLN TOWN CAR STRETCH
LIMOUSINE INVOLVED IN THE COLLISION,
Defendants
TO
BY MAIL TO:
JOHN L JULIANO PC
HON. TIMOTHY D. SINI
39 DOYLE CT
SUFFOLK COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY E NORTHPORT, NY I 1731
BY: ELIZABETH M[LLER, ESQ.
631499-9300
ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY
CR1MINAL COURTS BUlLDING THE BONGIORNOLAW
200 CENTER DR1VE F.lRM, PLLC.
1415 KELLUM STE. 205
NY PLACE,
R.1VERHEAD, 11901-3388
GARDEN CITY, NY 1 1530
631-852-2469
5 I6-741-4170
Page 1 of 4
1 of 4
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 10/19/2018 10:53 AM INDEX NO. 611214/2015
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 428 RECEIVED NYSCEF:. 10/19/2018
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 07 1
---
10 RECEIVED NYSCEF : O 7 / 18 / 2 0 18
NYS CE F DOC . NO . 4
PARIS & CHAlKIN PLC VlGORITO, BARKER,
14 PENN PLAZA, SUITE 2000 PORTER & PATTERSON, LLP
300 GARDEN CIT Y PLZ, STE 308 -
NEWYORK, NY 10122
212-742-0476 GARDEN CITY, NY 11530
5 16-288-7464
THE LAW OFFICE OF ROBlN V. SlNGH, ESQ. P.C.
193-15 HILLSIDE AVENUE AHMUTY DEMERS & MCMANUS
NY 11423 200 LU. WILLETS RD.
HOLLlS,
917-923-1646 ALBERTSON, NY 11507
516-294-5433
FRANK L LAINE, P.C.
449 S OYSTER BAY RD CASCONE & KLUEPFEL, LLP
PLA1NVIEW, NY 1 1803 1399 FRANKLIN AVENUE
516-937-1010 GARDEN CITY, NY 11530
516-747-1990
SULLlVAN, PAPAlN, BLOCK,
CANNAVO, P.C. LEWIS JOHS AVALLONEAVILES, LLP
MCGRATH,
1 140 FRANKLINAVE., STE 200 ONE CA PLAZA, SUITE 225
G ARDEN CITY, NY 11530 ISLANDIA, NY 11749
2'12-266-4208 631-755-0101
PEGALIS & ERICKSON, LLC DEVITT SPELLMAN BARRETT, LLP
I HOLLOW LN, STE 107 50 ROUTE II1
NEW HY DE PARK, NY 11042 SMITHTOWN, NY I 1787
516- 684-2900 631-724-8833
LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH J TOCK HON. DENNIS M.BROWN
963 ROUTE 6 SUFFOLK COUNTY ATTORNEY
MAHOPAC, NY 10541 100 VETERANS MEMORIAL H1GHWAY
845-628-8080 HAUPPAUGE, NY 1 1788
. 631-853-4055
BLOCK O'TOOLE & MURPHY LLP
I PENN PLAZA, SUITE S315 LA W OFFICE OF ANDREAG.SA WYERS
NEW YORK, NY 10119 PO BOX 9028
212-736-5300 MELVILLE, NY 11747
631-501-3077
Upon the in camera review of the minutes of the proceedings before Special Grandlury IE held
in Suffolk County New York from November 5, 2015 through February 23, 2016, it is:
ORDERED that the Suffolk County District Attorney is directed to make the minutes taken of
the proceedings before Special Grand Jury 1E held in Suffolk County New York fromNovember
5, 2015 through February 23, 2016 together with Exhibits admitted into evidence available to the
parties to this civil action for examination and copying at the expense of such party.
DECISION
This case arises out of the collision of a limousine with a pickup truck on July 18, 2015 at the
intersection of County Road 48 and Depot Lane in the Town of Southold. This collision resulted
in death of four passengers and serious injury to four other passengers in the limousine. The
Suffolk County District Attorney presented the facts surrotmding this case to a grand jury which
Page 2 of 4
2 o f 4
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 10/19/2018 10:53 AM INDEX NO. 611214/2015
FILED:
NYSCEF DOC. NO. SUFFOLK
428 COUNTY CLERK 07/9.W72
RECEIVED
1
NYSCEF: 10/19/2018
420
NYS CE F ISOC . NO . 4 10 RE CE IVED NYS CEF : O 7 / 18 / 2 0 18
returned indictments against Carlos Pino, the limousine driver, and Steven Romeo, the driver of
the pickup truck. A Special Grand Jury, Term IE, issued a Grand Jury Report pursuant to CPL
190.85(1)(c) and Plaintiff, Suzanne Schulman, as Administratrix of the Estate of Brittaney NI.
Schulman, deceased, made application to the Hon. Fernando M. Camacho, the presiding judge in
the criminal case for the release of minutes of the grand jury proceeding. By decision and order
dated March 27, 2017 Judge Camacho directed that the minutes of the proceeding be released to
this court for a determination of the propriety of unsealing some or all of the testimony and
evidence presented, but denied the release directly to the Plaintiff.
The Hon. Fernando M. Camacho, as required by law upon a motion made pursuant to CPL §
210.20, examined the sufficiency of the evidence presented to the grand jury against Carlos Pmo.
In connection with this examination the minutes of the grand jury were released to counsel in that
criminal action so that proper arguments could be presented to the court. CPL § 210.30 (3).
Thereafter, by decision and order dated October 26, 2016, nine counts of the indictment for
criminal charges returned against Carlos Pino were dismissed as being based upon insufficient
evidence. Now, by decision dated June 20, 2018, the Supreme Court of New York, Appellate
Division, Second Department, has affirmed the decision and order of Judge Camacho. Steven
Romeo has pleaded guilty to driving while ability impaired and has been sentenced. Judge
Camacho referred the question of release in the context of this case to this court.
Grand proceedings are secret and may not be disclosed except upon written order of the
jury
court. CPL § 190.25(4)(a). The question before this court of whether the grand jury minutes
should be released depends on many factors, most significantly when those minutes are to be
- released as it isthe premature release of the minutes that may have the most pernicious
consequences that are avoided by secrecy. People v. Di Napoli, 27 N.Y.2d 229 (1970). In
whether to release the minutes of a grand jury proceeding this court is required to
deciding
balance the competing interests of public disclosure with those of secrecy. ld at 234. The
factors that militate in favor of secrecy have been identified as: (1) prevention of flight by a
defendant who is about to be indicted; (2) protection of the grand jurors from interference from
those under investigation; (3) prevention of subornation of perjury and tampering with
prospective witnesses at the trialto be held as a result of any indictment the grand jury returns;
protection of an iññocent accused from unfounded accusations if in fact no indictment is
(4)
and assurance to prospective witnesses that their testimony will be kept secret so
returned; (5)
that will be to freely. The firstfour considerations are no longer present
they willing testify
insofar as indictments have already been returned and the criminal actions on those indictments
are now concluded. With respect to the assurance to prospective witnesses that their testimony
will be kept secret such a promise is illusory for any witness that could be called to testify at
or trialas the minutes would be released as Rosario material. The one notable exception
hearing
witness'
is for a witness that testifies under circumstances in which the safety is reasonably a
matter of concern and who may never be called to testify. See e.g.Kubecka v. State, 249 AD2d
513 (1998). The District has not identified witness protection as a consideration in this
Attorney
case. An important additional consideration in this case is thatthe nature of this motor vehicle
collision which resulted in deaths and physical caused an immediate law enforcement
injury
Page 3 of 4 . .
3 o f 4
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 10/19/2018 10:53 AM INDEX NO. 611214/2015
[FILED:
NYSCEF DOC. NO. SUFFOLK
428 COUNTY CLERK 07 /21%f
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
f0Èl.819394014 10/19/2018
TYSCEF DOC . NO. 410 RECEIVED NYS CE F : O 7/18 /2 O18
response with all the attendant security to the accident scene and collection of evidence. This has
naturally, and appropriately, limited the evidence available to the public and parties in this action
as secrecy is often a necessary adjunct to a proper investigation. That investigation is concluded
and the related criminal proceedings have come to an end. This leaves the court with a singular
interest to be considered:
"[T]he deepest needs of society, is that society is entitled to every man's evidence.
As the underlying aim ofjudicial inquiry isascertainable truth, everything
admissible."
ratiorïally related to ascertaining the truth is presumptively
Elkins v. United States, 364 U.S. 206 at 234 (1960) considering
the application of the exchrsionary rule.
If thiscourt were to restrict release of the evidence presented to the grand jury and leave itto the
parties to this action to only hope they were able to be as thorough as law enforcement had been
then the fundamental interest in fairly resolving this action would be compromised, Accordingly,
the testimony and evidence preseñted to the grand jury will be released as provided in the order
above.
The foregoing shall constitute the decision and or r of the court.
Dated: July 17, 2018
JOHN H. ROUSE, Actihg J.S.C.
NON-FINAL DISPOSITION
Page 4 of 4
4 o f 4
Preview
INDEX NO. 611214/2015 I FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 10/19/2018 10:53 AM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 428 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/19/2018 li n I I "A" EXHIBIT FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 10/19/2018 10:53 AM INDEX NO. 611214/2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 428 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/19/2018 FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 0 7 / 2W1 1B21t /420191 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 410 RECEIVED NYSCEF: O7/18/2018 INDEX NO. 611214/2015 SUPREME COURT- STATEOFNEW YORK I A.S.PART I2 -SUFFOLK COUNTY P R E S E N T : Hon. JohnH.Rouse Acting Supreme Court Justice e-filed ful/ participation SUZANNE SCHULMAN AS ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF BRITTNEY M. SCHULMAN, DECEASED, ALICIA M OLGA ARUNDEL, LIPETS, MINDY GRABINA A/O/E AMY AND MlNDY ORABfNA, GRABlNA, INDIVIDUALLY,, STEVEN BARUCH A/O/E LAUREN BARUCH, DECEASED, AND STEVEN BARUCH, INDIVIDUALLY, JOELLE DIMONTE, MEL1SSA A CRAI, ARTHUR A BELLI JR AS PARENT AND NATURAL GUARD1AN OF STEPHAN[.E.BELLI, DECEÂSED, AND AS THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE E/O STEPHANIE.BELLlx Plaintiffs DECISION& ORDER -against- ULTIMATE CLASSLlMOUS1NE,.[NC., CARLOS F PINO, ROMEO DIMON MARINE SERV1CE, INC., STEVEN TOWN OF DROMEO, SOUT.HOLD, COUNTY OF SUFFOLK, CABOT COACH BUILDERS, INC.D/B/A ROYALE LIMOUSINE, XYZ COMPANIES I-5NAME BElNG FICTITIOUS BUT INTENDED TO BE THE REMANUFACTURERS, D1STRIBUTORS, AND/OR SELLERS OF THE 2007 LINCOLN TOWN CAR STRETCH LIMOUSINE INVOLVED IN THE COLLISION, Defendants TO BY MAIL TO: JOHN L JULIANO PC HON. TIMOTHY D. SINI 39 DOYLE CT SUFFOLK COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY E NORTHPORT, NY I 1731 BY: ELIZABETH M[LLER, ESQ. 631499-9300 ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY CR1MINAL COURTS BUlLDING THE BONGIORNOLAW 200 CENTER DR1VE F.lRM, PLLC. 1415 KELLUM STE. 205 NY PLACE, R.1VERHEAD, 11901-3388 GARDEN CITY, NY 1 1530 631-852-2469 5 I6-741-4170 Page 1 of 4 1 of 4 FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 10/19/2018 10:53 AM INDEX NO. 611214/2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 428 RECEIVED NYSCEF:. 10/19/2018 FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 07 1 --- 10 RECEIVED NYSCEF : O 7 / 18 / 2 0 18 NYS CE F DOC . NO . 4 PARIS & CHAlKIN PLC VlGORITO, BARKER, 14 PENN PLAZA, SUITE 2000 PORTER & PATTERSON, LLP 300 GARDEN CIT Y PLZ, STE 308 - NEWYORK, NY 10122 212-742-0476 GARDEN CITY, NY 11530 5 16-288-7464 THE LAW OFFICE OF ROBlN V. SlNGH, ESQ. P.C. 193-15 HILLSIDE AVENUE AHMUTY DEMERS & MCMANUS NY 11423 200 LU. WILLETS RD. HOLLlS, 917-923-1646 ALBERTSON, NY 11507 516-294-5433 FRANK L LAINE, P.C. 449 S OYSTER BAY RD CASCONE & KLUEPFEL, LLP PLA1NVIEW, NY 1 1803 1399 FRANKLIN AVENUE 516-937-1010 GARDEN CITY, NY 11530 516-747-1990 SULLlVAN, PAPAlN, BLOCK, CANNAVO, P.C. LEWIS JOHS AVALLONEAVILES, LLP MCGRATH, 1 140 FRANKLINAVE., STE 200 ONE CA PLAZA, SUITE 225 G ARDEN CITY, NY 11530 ISLANDIA, NY 11749 2'12-266-4208 631-755-0101 PEGALIS & ERICKSON, LLC DEVITT SPELLMAN BARRETT, LLP I HOLLOW LN, STE 107 50 ROUTE II1 NEW HY DE PARK, NY 11042 SMITHTOWN, NY I 1787 516- 684-2900 631-724-8833 LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH J TOCK HON. DENNIS M.BROWN 963 ROUTE 6 SUFFOLK COUNTY ATTORNEY MAHOPAC, NY 10541 100 VETERANS MEMORIAL H1GHWAY 845-628-8080 HAUPPAUGE, NY 1 1788 . 631-853-4055 BLOCK O'TOOLE & MURPHY LLP I PENN PLAZA, SUITE S315 LA W OFFICE OF ANDREAG.SA WYERS NEW YORK, NY 10119 PO BOX 9028 212-736-5300 MELVILLE, NY 11747 631-501-3077 Upon the in camera review of the minutes of the proceedings before Special Grandlury IE held in Suffolk County New York from November 5, 2015 through February 23, 2016, it is: ORDERED that the Suffolk County District Attorney is directed to make the minutes taken of the proceedings before Special Grand Jury 1E held in Suffolk County New York fromNovember 5, 2015 through February 23, 2016 together with Exhibits admitted into evidence available to the parties to this civil action for examination and copying at the expense of such party. DECISION This case arises out of the collision of a limousine with a pickup truck on July 18, 2015 at the intersection of County Road 48 and Depot Lane in the Town of Southold. This collision resulted in death of four passengers and serious injury to four other passengers in the limousine. The Suffolk County District Attorney presented the facts surrotmding this case to a grand jury which Page 2 of 4 2 o f 4 FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 10/19/2018 10:53 AM INDEX NO. 611214/2015 FILED: NYSCEF DOC. NO. SUFFOLK 428 COUNTY CLERK 07/9.W72 RECEIVED 1 NYSCEF: 10/19/2018 420 NYS CE F ISOC . NO . 4 10 RE CE IVED NYS CEF : O 7 / 18 / 2 0 18 returned indictments against Carlos Pino, the limousine driver, and Steven Romeo, the driver of the pickup truck. A Special Grand Jury, Term IE, issued a Grand Jury Report pursuant to CPL 190.85(1)(c) and Plaintiff, Suzanne Schulman, as Administratrix of the Estate of Brittaney NI. Schulman, deceased, made application to the Hon. Fernando M. Camacho, the presiding judge in the criminal case for the release of minutes of the grand jury proceeding. By decision and order dated March 27, 2017 Judge Camacho directed that the minutes of the proceeding be released to this court for a determination of the propriety of unsealing some or all of the testimony and evidence presented, but denied the release directly to the Plaintiff. The Hon. Fernando M. Camacho, as required by law upon a motion made pursuant to CPL § 210.20, examined the sufficiency of the evidence presented to the grand jury against Carlos Pmo. In connection with this examination the minutes of the grand jury were released to counsel in that criminal action so that proper arguments could be presented to the court. CPL § 210.30 (3). Thereafter, by decision and order dated October 26, 2016, nine counts of the indictment for criminal charges returned against Carlos Pino were dismissed as being based upon insufficient evidence. Now, by decision dated June 20, 2018, the Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, Second Department, has affirmed the decision and order of Judge Camacho. Steven Romeo has pleaded guilty to driving while ability impaired and has been sentenced. Judge Camacho referred the question of release in the context of this case to this court. Grand proceedings are secret and may not be disclosed except upon written order of the jury court. CPL § 190.25(4)(a). The question before this court of whether the grand jury minutes should be released depends on many factors, most significantly when those minutes are to be - released as it isthe premature release of the minutes that may have the most pernicious consequences that are avoided by secrecy. People v. Di Napoli, 27 N.Y.2d 229 (1970). In whether to release the minutes of a grand jury proceeding this court is required to deciding balance the competing interests of public disclosure with those of secrecy. ld at 234. The factors that militate in favor of secrecy have been identified as: (1) prevention of flight by a defendant who is about to be indicted; (2) protection of the grand jurors from interference from those under investigation; (3) prevention of subornation of perjury and tampering with prospective witnesses at the trialto be held as a result of any indictment the grand jury returns; protection of an iññocent accused from unfounded accusations if in fact no indictment is (4) and assurance to prospective witnesses that their testimony will be kept secret so returned; (5) that will be to freely. The firstfour considerations are no longer present they willing testify insofar as indictments have already been returned and the criminal actions on those indictments are now concluded. With respect to the assurance to prospective witnesses that their testimony will be kept secret such a promise is illusory for any witness that could be called to testify at or trialas the minutes would be released as Rosario material. The one notable exception hearing witness' is for a witness that testifies under circumstances in which the safety is reasonably a matter of concern and who may never be called to testify. See e.g.Kubecka v. State, 249 AD2d 513 (1998). The District has not identified witness protection as a consideration in this Attorney case. An important additional consideration in this case is thatthe nature of this motor vehicle collision which resulted in deaths and physical caused an immediate law enforcement injury Page 3 of 4 . . 3 o f 4 FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 10/19/2018 10:53 AM INDEX NO. 611214/2015 [FILED: NYSCEF DOC. NO. SUFFOLK 428 COUNTY CLERK 07 /21%f RECEIVED NYSCEF: f0Èl.819394014 10/19/2018 TYSCEF DOC . NO. 410 RECEIVED NYS CE F : O 7/18 /2 O18 response with all the attendant security to the accident scene and collection of evidence. This has naturally, and appropriately, limited the evidence available to the public and parties in this action as secrecy is often a necessary adjunct to a proper investigation. That investigation is concluded and the related criminal proceedings have come to an end. This leaves the court with a singular interest to be considered: "[T]he deepest needs of society, is that society is entitled to every man's evidence. As the underlying aim ofjudicial inquiry isascertainable truth, everything admissible." ratiorïally related to ascertaining the truth is presumptively Elkins v. United States, 364 U.S. 206 at 234 (1960) considering the application of the exchrsionary rule. If thiscourt were to restrict release of the evidence presented to the grand jury and leave itto the parties to this action to only hope they were able to be as thorough as law enforcement had been then the fundamental interest in fairly resolving this action would be compromised, Accordingly, the testimony and evidence preseñted to the grand jury will be released as provided in the order above. The foregoing shall constitute the decision and or r of the court. Dated: July 17, 2018 JOHN H. ROUSE, Actihg J.S.C. NON-FINAL DISPOSITION Page 4 of 4 4 o f 4