People v. Blair, 155 A.D.3d 1

Background

In Nov. 2013 defendant Blair was arrested in his apartment on drug- and ammunition-related charges; in Mar. 2014 he pled guilty to disorderly conduct (a noncriminal violation) and received a one-year conditional discharge. Records were sealed under CPL 160.55 in Mar. 2015.
After the arrest, the Bronx DA’s Narcotics Eviction Unit sent the landlord an RPAPL 715 demand letter (Dec. 2013) and provided arrest-related records so the landlord could seek eviction for alleged drug activity.
The landlord initiated an eviction; trial did not occur until June 2015 (after sealing). At eviction trial the landlord introduced the previously provided criminal records; Housing Court struck them as sealed.
The People moved in Supreme Court, Criminal Term, under CPL 160.55(1)(d)(ii) to unseal the records ex parte for use in the civil eviction proceeding, arguing the DA was acting as a “law enforcement agency” under RPAPL 715.
Supreme Court granted the People’s motion. On appeal the First Department considered whether the People qualify as a “law enforcement agency” under CPL 160.55(1)(d)(ii) when acting pursuant to RPAPL 715 to demand eviction proceedings.
The Appellate Division reversed, holding that the People do not qualify under CPL 160.55(1)(d)(ii) for the purpose of unsealing records for use in a civil eviction proceeding.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the People are a “law enforcement agency” under CPL 160.55(1)(d)(ii) when acting under RPAPL 715 to require a landlord to commence eviction	DA: RPAPL 715 authorizes the DA to act in a law-enforcement capacity distinct from prosecution; thus CPL 160.55(1)(d)(ii) allows unsealing ex parte so landlord can use records in eviction	Blair: The sealing exceptions are narrow; CPL 160.55(1)(d)(ii) covers investigatory criminal purposes before a criminal proceeding, not civil eviction support	Court: No — DA acting under RPAPL 715 to prompt a civil eviction is not a qualifying “law enforcement agency” use under CPL 160.55(1)(d)(ii)
Whether CPL 160.55(1)(d)(ii) should be construed to permit unsealing for non-investigatory/post-commencement purposes	DA: Katherine B. is distinguishable; here DA’s role is investigatory/ enforcement under RPAPL 715	Blair: Katherine B. requires strict construction; exceptions limited to investigatory uses and generally pre‑commencement	Court: Katherine B. controls; exceptions strictly construed and do not extend to DA-assisted civil evictions
Whether legislative intent/evidence supports expanding prosecutorial access after Katherine B.	DA: Legislative proposals sought to expand access; RPAPL language parallels CPL language and contemplates enforcement assistance	Blair: Legislature rejected amendment; that supports keeping Katherine B. narrow	Court: Rejection of amendment reinforces decision to limit unsealing exceptions
Whether prior authority supports unsealing for RPAPL 715 assistance	DA: Argues enforcement role justifies access	Blair: Lower courts have rejected DA use of CPL 160.50/160.55 for civil eviction support	Court: Agrees with prior decisions denying similar arguments; civil use is not a criminal investigatory purpose

Key Cases Cited

Matter of Katherine B. v. Cataldo, 5 N.Y.3d 196 (N.Y. 2005) (holding CPL 160.50 exceptions must be strictly construed and CPL 160.50(1)(d)(ii) is limited to investigatory uses, generally before criminal proceedings)
People v. Canales, 174 Misc.2d 387 (Sup. Ct. Bronx County 1997) (denying DA status as a "law enforcement agency" under CPL exception where records sought for civil eviction)
People v. Diaz, 15 Misc.3d 410 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. County 2007) (refusing to treat DA’s RPAPL 715 assistance as a criminal investigatory purpose warranting unsealing)
Hynes v. Karassik, 47 N.Y.2d 659 (N.Y. 1979) (discussing reputational harms from criminal process; cited in statutory-purpose analysis)
Harper v. Angiolillo, 89 N.Y.2d 761 (N.Y. 1997) (recognized sealing statutes’ remedial purpose)