You are here: / / RESULTS OF NYPD DISCIPLINARY TRIALS ARE PERSONNEL RECORDS EXEMPT FROM A...

RESULTS OF NYPD DISCIPLINARY TRIALS ARE PERSONNEL RECORDS EXEMPT FROM A FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW REQUEST.

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the results of NYPD police officer disciplinary trials were personnel records which are exempt from a Freedom of Information Law request:

Public Officers Law § 87(2)(a) provides that an agency “may deny access to records” that “are specifically exempted from disclosure by state . . . statute.” The NYPD disciplinary decisions sought here fall within Civil Rights Law § 50-a, which makes confidential police “personnel records used to evaluate performance toward continued employment or promotion” … .

The fact that NYPD disciplinary trials are open to the public (38 RCNY 15-04[g]) does not remove the resulting decisions from the protective cloak of Civil Rights Law § 50-a … . Whether the trials are public and whether the written disciplinary decisions arising therefrom are confidential are distinct questions governed by distinct statutes and regulations … . Further, the disciplinary decisions include the disposition of the charges against the officer as well as the punishment imposed, neither of which is disclosed at the public trial. Matter of New York Civ. Liberties Union v New York City Police Dept., 2017 NY Slip Op 02506. 1st Dept 3-30-17

 

You might also like
FAILURE TO INSTRUCT JURY THAT AN ACQUITTAL ON THE TOP COUNT BASED ON THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE PRECLUDED CONSIDERATION OF THE REMAINING CHARGES REQUIRED REVERSAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (FIRST DEPT).
Supreme Court Abused Its Discretion by Vacating a Judgment Which Was Not Appealed by the Defendant
“In Transit” Means Between Destinations, Even If “At Rest”
EVIDENCE THAT DEFENDANT SEX OFFENDER SUFFERS FROM UNSPECIFIED PARAPHILIC DISORDER (USPD) MAY BE ADMISSIBLE IN AN ARTICLE 10 TRIAL, THE EVIDENCE WAS EXCLUDED BELOW, VERDICT VACATED AND PETITION REINSTATED (FIRST DEPT).
THE PROOF THE NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE WAS MAILED TO DEFENDANT WAS INADEQUATE AND THE NOTICE DID NOT INCLUDE A STATEMENT REQUIRED BY RPAPL 1304; THEREFORE THE BANK’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT). ​
LOSS OF RESTAURANT CUSTOMERS DUE TO COVID DOES NOT CONSTITUTE “DIRECT PHYSICAL LOSS OR DAMAGE” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE BUSINESS-INTERRUPTION INSURANCE POLICY (FIRST DEPT).
AN UNJUST ENRICHMENT CAUSE OF ACTION IS NOT AVAILABLE WHERE A CONTRACT COVERS THE RELEVANT ISSUE, EVEN IF THE DEFENDANTS ARE NONSIGNATORIES; UNJUST ENRICHMENT IS NOT A “CATCH ALL” CAUSE OF ACTION, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISQUALIFIED; HER TESTIMONY ABOUT HER ALLEGED CONDUCT AT THE INDEPENDENT MEDICAL EXAMINATION (IME) WOULD HAVE BEEN CUMULATIVE AND DEFENDANTS COULD NOT SHOW THE IME WAS COMPROMISED IN ANY WAY (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

RECORDS OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE CIVILIAN COMPLAINT REVIEW BOARD ARE POLICE... RECORDS OF PLAINTIFF’S STAY AT A SHELTER FOR VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE...