PEOPLE v. PADILLA

The court properly exercised its discretion in precluding defendant from cross-examining a witness about his sealed arrest record. Defendant was unable to establish a good faith basis for questioning the witness since the facts surrounding the arrest were not revealed and it was not even known if they involved any "bad act[s]" ( see People v. Francis, 15 AD3d 318, lv denied 4 NY3d 853; People v. Antonetty, 268 AD2d 254, lv denied 94 NY2d 945). Defendant's argument that the arrest may have resulted in a disposition of a type permitting the underlying facts to be used for impeachment, such as a youthful offender adjudication or an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal ( see People v. Gray, 84 NY2d 709, 712; People v. Vidal, 26 NY2d 249), is based upon speculation. It is equally possible that the sealed record stemmed from a verdict of acquittal or a dismissal on the merits, which would have negated any good faith basis for inquiring into the underlying facts ( see People v. Plaisted, 2 AD3d 906, 908, lv denied 2 NY3d 744). The court was not required to unseal the witness's arrest record in the absence of a showing by defendant that any information in the record would have demonstrated the witness's bias in favor of the prosecution or hostility to defendant ( see People v. Acevedo, 176 AD2d 886, lv denied 79 NY2d 823). The court's ruling did not impair defendant's right to confront the witness ( see Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 US 673, 678-679).