You are here: / / RECORDS OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE CIVILIAN COMPLAINT REVIEW BOARD ARE POLICE...

RECORDS OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE CIVILIAN COMPLAINT REVIEW BOARD ARE POLICE OFFICER PERSONNEL RECORDS WHICH ARE EXEMPT FROM A FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW REQUEST.

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Sweeney, reversing Supreme Court, determined Civilian Complaint Review Board (CCRB) records are police officer “personnel records” and are therefore exempt from disclosure under the Public Officers Law and Civil Rights Law. Petitioner sought a summary of any CCRB proceedings involving Officer Pantaleo, who was videotaped applying a choke hold to Eric Garner. Eric Garner died while being restrained by police officers:

We are called upon to determine whether the documents sought herein are the type of documents that fall within the parameters of “personnel records” and are thus protected from disclosure. Civil Rights Law § 50-a does not define “personnel records,” leaving it to the courts to determine the kind of documents qualify for this exemption. * * *

… [T]here is no question that the summary sought involves one officer and are part and parcel of his personnel file. There is also no question that the records sought are “used to evaluate performance toward continued employment or promotion,” as required by the statute. …

CCRB findings and recommendations are clearly of significance to superiors in evaluating police officers’ performance. As noted, all complaints filed with the CCRB, regardless of the outcome, are filed with and remain in an officer’s CCRB history, which is part of his or her personnel record maintained by the NYPD. We therefore hold that the CCRB met its burden of demonstrating that those documents constitute “personnel records” for purposes of Civil Rights Law § 50-a, and that they fall squarely within a statutory exemption of the statute … . Matter of Luongo v Records Access Officer, Civilian Complaint Review Bd., 2017 NY Slip Op 02523, 1st Dept 3-30-17

 

You might also like
Effect of “Notwithstanding” Clause; Criteria for Reformation of Contract
THE PEOPLE DID NOT MEET THEIR “BURDEN OF GOING FORWARD” BY PRESENTING SUFFICIENT PROOF OF THE LEGALITY OF POLICE CONDUCT AT THE SUPPRESSION HEARING; THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THE OFFICERS WHO ARRESTED DEFENDANT WERE MADE AWARE OF THE CO-DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT WHICH WAS THE BASIS OF THE ARREST; THE FACT THAT GAPS IN THE PEOPLE’S PROOF MAY HAVE BEEN FILLED IN BY THE DEFENDANT’S TESTIMONY AT THE HEARING DIDN’T CURE THE DEFICIENCY (FIRST DEPT).
REJECTING THE 2ND DEPARTMENT’S CRITICISM OF THE 1ST DEPARTMENT’S THIRD-PARTY-ASSAULT JURISPRUDENCE, THE 1ST DEPARTMENT HELD THE BROKEN DOOR THROUGH WHICH THE ASSAILANTS GAINED ACCESS TO THE BUILDING WHERE PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT WAS SHOT AND KILLED WAS NOT A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE SHOOTING BECAUSE THE ASSAILANTS WOULD HAVE FOUND A WAY TO ENTER THE BUILDING EVEN IF THE DOOR LOCK WERE WORKING (FIRST DEPT).
THE PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE OFFICER WHO SEARCHED DEFENDANT’S PERSON INTENDED TO ARREST THE DEFENDANT AT THE TIME OF THE SEARCH; THEREFORE THE SEARCH WAS NOT A VALID SEARCH INCIDENT TO ARREST AND THE SEIZED EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FIRST DEPT).
LANDLORD’S FAILURE TO PROCURE TOWN RENTAL PERMIT IS NOT A DEFENSE TO THE LANDLORD’S ACTION TO COLLECT RENT.
CLAIMANT COULD NOT SEEK COMPENSATION FOR PERIODIC FLOODING OF HIS LOT UNDER THE EMINENT DOMAIN PROCEDURE LAW; THERE WAS NO DE JURE TAKING BY THE CITY, AND THE CRITERIA FOR INVERSE CONDEMNATION WERE NOT MET (FIRST DEPT).
THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION WAS BASED UPON A LEASE ENTERED BY A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY THE ASSETS OF WHICH WERE PURCHASED BY THE TWO DEFENDANT LIMITED LIABILTY COMPANIES; THE MAJORITY CONCLUDED THE COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER THE THEORY THAT THE DEFENDANTS CONSTITUTED A “MERE CONTINUATION” OF THE ORIGINAL LESSEE’S BUSINESS; THERE WAS A TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FIRST DEPT).
THE PEOPLE DID NOT PROVE THE SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S FANNY PACK WAS A VALID SEARCH INCIDENT TO ARREST; CONVICTIONS REVERSED (FIRST 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

DEFENDANTS’ DEMAND FOR A CHANGE OF VENUE WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED AS UNTIMELY... RESULTS OF NYPD DISCIPLINARY TRIALS ARE PERSONNEL RECORDS EXEMPT FROM A FREEDOM...