You are here: / / PETITIONER, IN THIS JUDICIARY LAW 509 PROCEEDING, CAN NOT COMPEL THE COMMISSIONER...
,

PETITIONER, IN THIS JUDICIARY LAW 509 PROCEEDING, CAN NOT COMPEL THE COMMISSIONER OF JURORS TO REVEAL THE RESPONDENT’S ADDRESS AND DATES OF JURY SERVICE IN ORDER TO IMPEACH RESPONDENT’S TESTIMONY THAT HE RESIDED IN PETITIONER’S BUILDING IN 2008 AND 2009 AND WAS THEREFORE ENTITLED TO LOFT LAW PROTECTION UNDER THE MULTIPLE DWELLING LAW (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, over a dissent, determined the petitioner in this Judiciary Law 509 (a) proceeding was not entitled to compel the Commissioner of Jurors to disclose respondent’s (Swezey’s) home and mailing address, as well as the dates of Swezey’s jury service. Petitioner was seeking to disprove Swezey’s testimony that he resided in a building owned by petitioner in 2008 and 2009 and was therefore entitled to Loft Law protection under the Multiple Dwelling Law:

Judiciary Law § 509(a) requires that juror “questionnaires and records shall be considered confidential and shall not be disclosed except to the county jury board or as permitted by the appellate division.” The purpose of the statute is to “provide a cloak of confidentiality for the information which the [juror] questionnaires contain” and to shield all information from disclosure in order to protect a juror’s privacy interest and/or safety (Matter of Newsday, Inc. v Sise , 71 NY2d 146, 152 [1987] … ). This blanket rule bars an individual from seeking any juror records unless the individual “present[s] some factual predicate which would make it reasonably likely that the records would provide relevant evidence” (People v Guzman , 60 NY2d 403, 415 [1983] …).

Here, petitioner failed to provide the necessary factual predicate to obtain these confidential records. Petitioner’s sole reason for requesting Swezey’s juror records is to impeach his testimony … . However, disclosure for the purpose of impairing someone’s credibility has been expressly rejected by the Court of Appeals in People v Guzman.  Matter of A. Trenkmann Estate, Inc. v Tingling, 2019 NY Slip Op 03923, First Dept 5-21-19

 

You might also like
Where Plaintiff Was “Demoted” In Violation of an Employment Agreement, the Restrictive Covenants in the Agreement Are No Longer Enforceable
THE INDICTMENT CHARGED DEFENDANT WITH ASSAULT SECOND AND ATTEMPTED ASSAULT SECOND BUT DID NOT ALLEGE THE USE OF A DEADLY WEAPON OR A DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT; THE PEOPLE’S THEORY AT TRIAL WAS DEFENDANT USED A PVC PIPE AS A DEADLY WEAPON OR A DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT; BUT, TO CORRECT THE FLAWED INDICTMENT, THE JUDGE, A DAY BEFORE THE END OF THE TRIAL, AMENDED THE INDICTMENT TO CHARGE ASSAULT THIRD AND ATTEMPTED ASSUALT THIRD; THE AMENDMENT PREJUDICED THE DEFENDANT (FIRST DEPT).
THE 2022 AMENDMENT TO DOMESTIC RELATIONS LAW 111 REQUIRING CONSENT TO ADOPTION BY A NONMARITAL FATHER WHO HAS ACKNOWLEDGED PATERNITY APPLIES RETROATIVELY; TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS REVERSED (FIRST DEPT).​
PLAINTIFF, WHO WAS BORN TWO YEARS BEFORE HIS MOTHER AND FATHER WERE MARRIED, WAS A DISTRIBUTEE OF HIS FATHER’S ESTATE; IT HAS YET TO BE DETERMINED WHETHER DEFENDANT YOUSEF FRAUDULENTLY REPRESENTED HE WAS THE SOLE HEIR WHEN HE TRANSFERRED REAL PROPERTY TO DEFENDANT BASMANOV (FIRST DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THIS NON-TORT ACTION AGAINST THE NYC DISTRICT ATTORNEY DID NOT TRIGGER THE NOTICE OF CLAIM REQUIREMENT OF THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW, IT DID TRIGGER THE NOTICE OF CLAIM REQUIREMENT OF THE COUNTY LAW (FIRST DEPT).
Telephone-Communication Buy-Sell Arrangements Sufficient for Long-Arm Jurisdiction/Forum Selection Clause In Invoices Not Enforceable Pursuant to UCC 207
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE WAS PROPERLY DENIED, DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE WHEN THE AREA WAS LAST INSPECTED OR CLEANED AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF WATER ON THE FLOOR (FIRST DEPT).
Elements of Causes of Action for (1) Misappropriation of (a) Trade Secrets, (b) Business Ideas, and (c) Labor, Skills and Expenditures, (2) Breach of Fiduciary Duty (Delaware Law), (3) Aiding and Abetting Breach of Fiduciary Duty (Delaware Law), (4) Unjust Enrichment, and (5) Promissory Estoppel Described in Some Detail

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

THE PUBLIC ASSISTANCE BENEFIT RECEIVED BY CLAIMANT DURING PARTICIPATION IN A... THE CITY AND DEFENDANT CORRECTION OFFICER ARE NOT UNITED IN INTEREST BECAUSE...