You are here: / / Eliot Spitzer, Former New York Attorney General, Was a Necessary Party...
,

Eliot Spitzer, Former New York Attorney General, Was a Necessary Party in FOIL Proceeding Seeking His Private Emails In Connection With Civil Enforcement Action against AIG Chief Financial Officer

Petitioner, former Chief Financial Officer of AIG, was the subject of a civil enforcement action against him brought in 2005 by then Attorney General Eliot Spitzer.  Supreme Court granted petitioner’s Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) request for access to private emails of Spitzer.  The Third Department determined that, given the nature of the documents requested, and Spitzer’s current status as a private person, he was a necessary party to the action:

Since at this juncture the object of this proceeding is Spitzer’s private email account(s), and the outcome of this appeal could be a directive to respondent to gain access to and review those private accounts, Spitzer would certainly be “inequitably affected by a judgment in th[is] [proceeding]” and “ought to be [a] part[y] if complete relief is to be accorded between the persons who are parties to [this proceeding]” (CPLR 1001 [a]).  As such, Spitzer is a necessary party herein … .  While not raised directly by the parties, “the court may at any stage of a case and on its own motion determine whether there is a nonjoinder of necessary parties” … .  “The rule . . . insures fairness to third parties who ought not to be prejudiced or ’embarrassed by judgments purporting to bind their rights or interest where they have had no opportunity to be heard'” … .

In this matter, resolution of the disputed FOIL demand directly impacts the personal property of Spitzer, now a private citizen who is not before this Court and whose significant private rights and property cannot be said to be protected by the current respondent, which admittedly does not represent Spitzer’s private interests.  However, “[t]his [C]ourt has previously held that a court may not, on its own initiative, add or direct the addition of a party” (…see CPLR 1003).  Accordingly, the matter must be remitted to Supreme Court to order Spitzer to be joined if he is subject to the jurisdiction of the court and, if not, to permit Spitzer’s joinder by stipulation, motion or otherwise and, “if joinder cannot be effectuated, the court must then determine whether the [proceeding] should be permitted to proceed in the absence of necessary parties”… .  Matter of Smith v NYS Office of the Attorney General, 515758, 3rd Dept 10-17-13

 

You might also like
FAMILY COURT DID NOT FOLLOW THE PROCEDURE MANDATED BY THE UNIFORM CHILD CUSTODY JURISDICTION AND ENFORCEMENT ACT BEFORE RULING OHIO HAD JURISDICTION IN THE CUSTODY MATTER; MOTHER’S NEW YORK FAMILY OFFENSE PETITION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BECAUSE NEW YORK HAS SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION OVER FAMILY OFFENSES OCCURRING IN OHIO (THIRD DEPT).
THE RECORD DOES NOT DEMONSTRATE WHETHER THE DEFENDANT REVIEWED THE VERDICT SHEET WHICH INCLUDED UNAUTHORIZED ANNOTATIONS BY THE JUDGE; MATTER REMITTED FOR A RECONSTRUCTION HEARING (THIRD DEPT).
THE TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT AND DEFAMATION CAUSES OF ACTION WERE NOT REFUTED BY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE AND WERE ADEQUATELY PLED (THIRD DEPT). ​
THE EVIDENCE DEMONSTRATED RESPONDENT, WHO HAD ENTERED A PLEA OF NOT RESPONSIBLE BY REASON OF MENTAL DISEASE OR DEFECT TO RAPE, ASSAULT AND OTHER CHARGES, SUFFERED FROM A DANGEROUS MENTAL DISORDER REQUIRING CONTINUED PLACEMENT IN A SECURE FACILITY, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).
FLAWED EVIDENCE REQUIRED ANNULMENT OF SMUGGLING CHARGES.
ARBITRATOR EXCEEDED HIS AUTHORITY PURSUANT TO THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT (CBA) BY RELYING ON EVIDENCE WHICH WAS NOT PART OF THE HEARING EVIDENCE TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE RESPONDENT HAD PROBABLE CAUSE TO SUSPEND THE PETITIONER (THIRD DEPT).
HERE THE AUTOMATIC DOOR AT A RESIDENTIAL FACILITY CLOSED ON THE ELDERLY PLAINTIFF; SENSORS WHICH WOULD PREVENT THE DOOR FROM CLOSING WERE AVAILABLE; THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE DOOR WAS SAFE (THIRD DEPT). ​
Amendment Allowing the Consideration of Incarceration as a Reason for a Downward Support Modification Is Not Applied Retroactively

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2024 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Stay During Appellate Process Expires Five Days After Court of Appeals Denies... Son’s Application for Succession to Mitchell-Lama Apartment Should Not Have...