You are here: / / INSUFFICIENT SHOWING BY THE STATE POLICE TO JUSTIFY DENIAL OF REQUEST FOR...

INSUFFICIENT SHOWING BY THE STATE POLICE TO JUSTIFY DENIAL OF REQUEST FOR RECORDS PERTAINING TO A VICTIM OF CRIMES COMMITTED BY PETITIONER, MATTER REMITTED.

The Third Department determined the state police did not make sufficient assertions to justify the denial of petitioner’s request for records concerning a victim of crimes committed by petitioner (an inmate). The state police did not provide factual information to support the claims that the records would disclose non-routine investigatory techniques and would violate privacy. The state police further failed to show that redaction could address those concerns. The matter was remitted to Supreme Court:

The State Police merely paraphrased the statutory language of the exemptions without describing the records withheld or providing any factual basis for its conclusory assertions that disclosure would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy and would reveal nonroutine criminal investigative techniques and procedures … . Further, with respect to the personal privacy exemption, the State Police offered no proof that the requested records fell into any enumerated categories and failed to specify the implicated privacy interests, if any, against which the public interest in disclosing the records were to be balanced … .

Moreover, Public Officers Law § 89 (2) (a) expressly permits an agency to delete “identifying details” from records that it makes available to the public in order to prevent unwarranted invasions of personal privacy … , and the State Police failed to make any showing as to whether the requested documents could be redacted in such a manner as to protect personal privacy … . Nor did it submit the documents to Supreme Court for an in camera review to allow an “informed determination” by the court on that issue … . Matter of McFadden v Fonda, 2017 NY Slip Op 02101, 3rd Dept 3-23-17

 

You might also like
NEW LAW THAT WENT INTO EFFECT WHEN THE CLAIM WAS BEING RECONSIDERED SHOULD HAVE BEEN APPLIED, CLAIMS MAY NO LONGER BE DENIED ON THE FACTUAL FINDING THAT THE STRESS EXPERIENCED BY CLAIMANT IS NOT GREATER THAN THAT WHICH USUALLY OCCURS IN THE WORK ENVIRONMENT, POLICE OFFICER CLAIMED ANXIETY AND PHOBIAS RELATED TO THE SIGHT OF BLOOD (THIRD DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE VICTIM’S FACIAL SCARS WERE SHOWN TO THE JURY NO DESCRIPTION OF THE SCARS APPEARS IN THE TRIAL RECORD AND NO PHOTOGRAPH OF THE SCARS WAS INTRODUCED; THEREFORE THE SERIOUS DISFIGUREMENT ELEMENT OF ASSAULT FIRST WAS NOT DEMONSTRATED AND THE ASSAULT FIRST CONVICTION WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE; CONVICTION REDUCED TO ATTEMPTED ASSAULT FIRST (THIRD DEPT).
CITY DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF THE PROTRUDING SIGN ANCHOR IN THE SIDEWALK AND PLAINTIFF WAS UNABLE TO SHOW THE CONDITION WAS THE IMMEDIATE EFFECT OF ACTION TAKEN BY THE CITY, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).
PROSECUTION CAN NOT USE THE DOCTRINE OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL, BASED UPON A PRIOR ATTEMPTED MURDER CONVICTION, TO PROVE INTENT IN A MURDER PROSECUTION STEMMING FROM THE DEATH OF THE SAME VICTIM, EVIDENCE PRESENTED TO THE GRAND JURY INSUFFICIENT, INDICTMENT DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).
Defendant’s Failure to Appear at Pre-Trial Conference Did Not Warrant Striking Answer
PETITIONER, A COURT OFFICER, SLIPPED AND FELL ON A WET FLOOR IN THE COURTHOUSE; THE FALL WAS AN ACCIDENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE RETIREMENT AND SOCIAL SECURITY LAW (THIRD DEPT).
DEFENDANT WAS REQUIRED TO WEAR AN ALCOHOL MONITORING DEVICE AS A CONDITION OF PROBATION BUT WAS UNABLE TO PAY FOR IT, THE PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO PAY WAS WILLFUL, THEREFORE COUNTY COURT WAS OBLIGATED TO CONSIDER PUNISHMENT OTHER THAN INCARCERATION (THIRD DEPT).
DEFENSE COUNSEL VOUCHED FOR THE CREDIBILITY OF THE VICTIM, DID NOT OBJECT WHEN THE PROSECUTOR VOUCHED FOR THE CREDIBILITY OF THE VICTIM, AND ALLOWED EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S PRIOR CRIMES TO COME IN DESPITE A SANDOVAL RULING KEEPING IT OUT; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (THIRD DEPT).

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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

DEFENDANT DID NOT CONSENT TO THE ENTRY AND SEARCH OF HIS HOME, MOTION TO SUPPRESS... DELIBERATIVE PROCESS PRIVILEGE UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW DOES NOT...