A mid-level appeals court has upheld a decision to withhold the grand jury minutes in ​the case against a cop initially charged in ​Eric Garner’s chokehold death.

The NAACP, New York Civil Liberties Union, Legal Aid Society and Public Advocate Letitia James — which appealed an earlier Supreme Court decision to keep the records secret — failed to prove there was a “compelling and particularized need for disclosure,” the four Second Department judges wrote in court papers.

“The Supreme Court properly determined that the public interest in disclosure was outweighed by the dangers inherent in violating the secrecy of the grand jury proceeding,” the appellate judges wrote.

A limited amount of information pertaining to a grand jury’s decision to not indict Officer Daniel Pantaleo in Garner’s July 2014 death was released in December.

But a Staten Island judge later ruled to keep the rest of the record sealed.

At a hearing last month, attorneys for the four groups argued that minutes should be released because of public interest and to inform future grand jury reform.

“They cherry-picked their disclosure … not disclosing the rest … is fueling the public interest,” Natalie Rea, an attorney for the Legal Aid Society, said at the time.

The appellate panel noted that disclosure could “negatively interfere” with an ongoing federal investigation into Garner’s death.

James, who wants the grand jury minutes in order to investigate then-Staten Island DA Daniel Donovan’s office, vowed to again appeal the decision.

“We will not give up on our quest for justice and transparency,” James said in a statement. “The public deserves to know what happened with that grand jury and why what we saw with our eyes did not match the failure to indict those responsible for Eric Garner’s death.”

Three of four judges agreed in the decision that James’ office shouldn’t have had the ability to appeal in the first place because it lacked “capacity” to investigate Donovan under city charter law.

But Justice John Leventhal separately wrote in the 10-page decision that James’ office does have the authority to probe the DA as a “watchdog over the New York City government.”

James said the panel misinterpreted its quest for disclosure.

The Court misconstrued our petition for transparency as a criminal proceeding. They are mistaken,” she said.

“Rather, our civil case seeks information about what transpired in judicial proceedings that led to the shocking Garner decision. The Court committed an error of law that we hope will be righted on appeal.”

A spokesman for the Staten Island DA’s Office had no comment.