Case Name: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Gladys Mae Hall, Clarence Carter and Ruby Clinton, Also Known as Ruby Love, Appellants; The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Lawrence Brown, Appellant; The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Hardy Williams, Jr., Appellant; The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Jerome Clinton, Appellant; The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Richard Susewell, Appellant; The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Gladys Mae Hall, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1977-02-07
Citations: 89 Misc. 2d 836
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Gladys Mae Hall, Clarence Carter and Ruby Clinton, Also Known as Ruby Love, Appellants. The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Lawrence Brown, Appellant. The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Hardy Williams, Jr., Appellant. The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jerome Clinton, Appellant. The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Richard Susewell, Appellant. The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Gladys Mae Hall, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 89
Pages: 836–837

Head Matter:
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Gladys Mae Hall, Clarence Carter and Ruby Clinton, Also Known as Ruby Love, Appellants. The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Lawrence Brown, Appellant. The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Hardy Williams, Jr., Appellant. The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jerome Clinton, Appellant. The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Richard Susewell, Appellant. The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Gladys Mae Hall, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department,
February 7, 1977
Sutter, Moffatt, Yannelli & Zevin, P. C. (Marvin Zevin of counsel), for appellants. Denis Dillon, District Attorney (Herbert H. Esrick of counsel), for respondent.

Opinion:
Memorandum. Judgments of conviction unanimously reversed on the law and facts and a new trial ordered.
In light of the concession of the People, and after reviewing the record on appeal, we are of the opinion that the absence of judicial supervision in unsealing the tapes of the recorded conversations before the Grand Jury rendered said tapes inadmissible in evidence (People v Sher, 38 NY2d 600, 603-605). We also find that the procedure then in use to preserve the sanctity and integrity of the tapes was grossly inadequate in that no log was kept as to the movement of the tapes and that the tapes themselves were not sealed in such a way so that a breaking of the seal could be detected.
Concur — Farley, P.J., Pittoni and Silberman, JJ.