IN THE MATTER OF PALACIO v. MORGENTHAU

Respondent's disclosure to the Division of Parole of petitioner-inmate's previous arrests, which had been sealed pursuant to CPL 160.50, was improper. Although the sealing provision is generally invoked by those seeking to protect their reputation and employment prospects ( see CPL 160.60; Matter of Hynes v. Karassik, 47 NY2d 659, 662-663), nothing in the statute prevents its application to the situation presented in this case ( Matter of Burr v. Goord, 283 AD2d 891; see also Matter of Alonzo M. v. New York City Dept. of Probation, 72 NY2d 662, 668). Accordingly, petitioner is entitled to a new parole recommendation that makes no reference to arrests that have been sealed pursuant to CPL 160.50. However, petitioner is not entitled to expungement of records or any other relief ( Matter of Brown v. Hallman, 278 AD2d 604, lv denied 96 NY2d 709 ).