People v. Giacopelli

2024 NY Slip Op 50869(U)

The People of the State of New York, v. Paul Giacopelli, Defendant.

Indictment No. 70074-24

County Court, Putnam County

July 9, 2024

Unpublished Opinion

GAITMAN & RUSSO LLP Attn: Steven J. Gaitman, Esq. Attorneys for Defendant Paul Giacopelli

PUTNAM COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE Attn: ADA Melissa Lynch

Anthony R. Molé, J.

The following papers were read and considered on the omnibus motion (Mot. Seq. No. 1) made by PAUL GIACOPELLI (hereinafter defendant):

Papers:

1. Notice of Motion; Affirmation in Support; Exhibit A

2. People's Affirmation in Response; Exhibit A

3. Transcript of the Grand Jury Minutes from March 22, 2024 Grand Jury Exhibits 1-7

Upon review of the foregoing papers, the Court finds and determines as follows:

On March 29, 2024, defendant was charged in a multi-count indictment with sexual abuse in the first degree in violation of Penal Law § 130.65 (2) (four counts); forcible touching in violation of Penal Law § 130.52 (1) (four counts); assault in the second degree in violation of Penal Law § 120.05 (5) (four counts); and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree in violation of Penal Law § 220.16 (2) (one count). The underlying charges stem from accusations by a female complainant, who was employed as a residential nanny by defendant-a licensed anesthesiologist. According to the indictment, defendant on four separate occasions, drugged the complainant with an anesthetic drug while she was asleep in his home and sexually abused her when she was unconscious.

Defendant was arraigned on April 30, 2024, when he entered a not guilty plea. By an Order dated May 30, 2024, the undersigned granted the People's motion to compel defendant to submit to a buccal saliva swab in order to collect his DNA sample for analysis in connection with the underlying charges (see CPL 245.20 [1] [e]; Matter of Abe A. 56 N.Y.2d 288, 291 [1982]).

On June 3, 2024, defendant filed his omnibus motion requesting various associated relief. The People, in turn, filed their responsive papers on June 18, 2024. Defendant elected not to file reply papers and rests on his initial moving papers.

His omnibus motion is thus fully submitted and ripe for determination. The Court will address each branch of defendant's motion, in turn, and dispose of it as follows:

I. Defendant's Motion for Inspection of the Grand Jury Minutes

Initially defendant moves for an inspection of the grand jury minutes. The People consent to have the Court review the grand jury minutes, in camera, for legal sufficiency purposes and represent that they have provided a copy of the minutes to the Court and defense counsel for such purpose. Accordingly, this branch of defendant's motion is moot. The Court has inspected the minutes of the grand jury proceeding relative to this case (see CPL 210.30 [3]; CPL 245.20; see also People v Calbud, Inc., 49 N.Y.2d 389, 394-395 [1980]; People v Monserrate, 24 Misc.3d 1229 [A], *1 [Sup Ct, Queens County 2009]).

II. The Grand Jury Proceeding

Next, defendant requests the Court to inspect the grand jury minutes for purposes of determining, inter alia, legal sufficiency of the evidence, proper instructions and legal charges, and whether there were any flaws in the process and proceeding so as to impair its integrity. Defendant requests in such event that the indictment be dismissed or potentially reduced.

The People counter that the evidence presented to the grand jury was legally sufficient in all respects to support the charged offenses. They maintain that the integrity of the proceeding was not impaired by hearsay evidence or minor flaws and errors since there was no prejudice to defendant. The Court agrees with the People in sustaining the indictment for the reasons that follow.

a. Legal Standard

It is well settled that on a motion to dismiss an indictment based on the alleged legal insufficiency of the evidence before the grand jury, the Court must determine whether there is "competent evidence which, if accepted as true, would establish every element of an offense charged and the defendant's commission thereof" (CPL 70.10 [1]; see People v Jensen, 86 N.Y.2d 248, 251-252 [1995]). "Courts assessing the sufficiency of the evidence before a grand jury must evaluate whether the evidence, viewed most favorably to the People, if unexplained and uncontradicted-and deferring all questions as to the weight or quality of the evidence-would warrant conviction" (People v Mills, 1 N.Y.3d 269, 274-275 [2003] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; accord People v Wisey, 133 A.D.3d 799, 799-800 [2d Dept 2015]).

"In the context of a Grand Jury proceeding, legal sufficiency means prima facie proof of the crimes charged, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The reviewing court's inquiry is limited to whether the facts, if proven, and the inferences that logically flow from those facts supply proof of every element of the charged crimes, and whether the Grand Jury could rationally have drawn the guilty inference. That other, innocent inferences could possibly be drawn from those facts is irrelevant to the sufficiency inquiry as long as the Grand Jury could rationally have drawn the guilty inference" (People v Wisey, 133 A.D.3d at 800 [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see People v Deegan, 69 N.Y.2d 976, 979 [1987]). "Inquiry into the adequacy of the proof to establish reasonable cause-the 'degree of certitude' the evidence provides-is exclusively the province of the Grand Jury" (People v Swamp, 84 N.Y.2d 725, 730 [1995]; see CPL 190.65 [1] [b]).

Importantly, "[i]t is sufficient if the [prosecutor] provides the Grand Jury with enough information to enable it intelligently to decide whether a crime has been committed and to determine whether there exists legally sufficient evidence to establish the material elements of the crime. The People have wide discretion in presenting evidence to establish their case and do not have the obligation to present to the Grand Jury every piece of evidence which they possess against a suspect, nor must every matter which may have a tendency to reflect upon the credibility of a witness be revealed. The Grand Jury proceeding is not intended to be adversarial in nature or a minitrial of the individual suspected of committing a crime" (People v Shahzad, 71 A.D.3d 704, 705-706 [2d Dept 2010] [internal quotations marks and citations omitted] [emphasis added]; see People v Colucci, 32 A.D.3d 1044, 1045 [2d Dept 2006]; People v Suarez, 122 A.D.2d 861, 862 [2d Dept 1986], lv denied 68 N.Y.2d 817 [1986]).

Moreover, the Court of Appeals has expressed that CPL 210.35 (5) establishes a "high test" to qualify for the "exceptional remedy" of dismissing an indictment: "[t]he statutory test is very precise and very high" (see People v Darby, 75 N.Y.2d 449, 455 [1990]). "[M]ere flaw, error[,] or skewing" is not enough (id.).

"Generally, hearsay evidence is inadmissible before the Grand Jury" (People v Dunn, 248 A.D.2d 87, 94 [1st Dept 1998], appeal withdrawn 93 N.Y.2d 1002 [1999]; see People v Huston, 88 N.Y.2d at 406-407). However, "hearsay evidence may be admitted before the Grand Jury so long as the resulting indictment[ ] [is] not founded on hearsay which the Grand Jury 'may not have understood as such'" (People v Perry, 199 A.D.2d 889, 893 [3d Dept 1993], quoting People v Pelchat, 62 N.Y.2d 97, 106 [1984]). Errors in admission of hearsay evidence must be of a significant magnitude to impair the integrity of grand jury proceedings (see People v Carey, 241 A.D.2d 748, 750-751 [3d Dept 1997], lv denied 90 N.Y.2d 1010 [1997]). Even "isolated instances of hearsay testimony, which were accompanied by appropriate limiting instructions, do not warrant dismissal" of the indictment (People v Miller, 110 A.D.3d at 1150-1151) - so long as there is otherwise legally sufficient and admissible evidence to sustain the counts of the indictment.

b. The Grand Jury Proceeding

Applying these legal standards to the case at hand, the Court finds that the evidence presented to the grand jury, when viewed in the light most favorable to the People, was legally sufficient to establish the criminal offenses charged in the indictment (see CPL 70.10 [1]; People v Mills, 1 N.Y.3d 269, 274-275 [2003]; People v Wisey, 133 A.D.3d at 799-801). Defendant's blanket assertion that indictment is, or may be, grounded upon legally insufficient evidence is without merit (see People v Williams, 150 A.D.3d 1273, 1279 [2d Dept 2017], lv denied 29 N.Y.3d 1135 [2017]; People v Santos, 21 Misc.3d 360, 370-371 [Sup Ct, Nassau County 2008]).

The Court initially points out that the minutes reflect that a quorum of grand jurors was present at the beginning of the proceeding and before the grand jury voted to deliberate on the charges (see People v Huston, 88 N.Y.2d at 409; People v Robinson, 156 A.D.3d 1123, 1128 n 8 [3d Dept 2017], lv denied 30 N.Y.3d 1119 [2018]). The entire proceeding started and finished the same day. None of the grand jurors had any questions for the witnesses who testified before them. Defendant's due process rights were not violated during the grand jury process. Nor does the court find that the proceeding itself was somehow infected.

As to defendant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence presented to the grand jury, the female complainant testified that she was a former nanny for the defendant. She stated that defendant is married to his wife and has twin children. The complainant testified that she worked as a nanny for defendant from September 2020 to December 2023 providing residential childcare for defendant's children who have special needs. She stated that her work hours in that role were Monday to Friday mornings, and about one or...