You are here: / / SALARIES OF UNDERCOVER POLICE OFFICERS NOT SUBJECT TO DISCLOSURE PURSUANT...

SALARIES OF UNDERCOVER POLICE OFFICERS NOT SUBJECT TO DISCLOSURE PURSUANT TO A FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW REQUEST (FIRST DEPT).

he First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the salary of undercover police officers should not be disclosed:

FOIL provides that “[n]othing in [the statute] shall be construed to require any entity to prepare any record not possessed or maintained by such entity” (Public Officers Law § 89[3][a]), with exceptions not raised here. Accordingly, respondent is not obligated to compile “aggregate data” “from the documents or records in its possession” … .

In any event, the information sought as to the salaries of undercover police officers, whether aggregated or individualized, is exempt from disclosure under FOIL’s public safety exemption (Public Officers Law § 87[2][f]). Respondent met its burden of making a particularized showing that publicly releasing this information would create “a possibility of endangerment” to the public’s safety … . Respondent submitted an affidavit of the Undercover Coordinator of the New York City Police Department (NYPD) establishing that this information could be used to estimate the total number of undercover officers employed by NYPD. The analysis of petitioner’s request must consider not only the instant FOIL request for information as to fiscal year 2017, but also future requests which could be made for equivalent information as to other years. Such information would allow members of the public to estimate the increases or decreases in the overall number of undercover officers, which could “undermine their deterrent effect, hamper NYPD’s counterterrorism operations, and increase the likelihood of another terrorist attack” … . Respondent’s past disclosure of salary and other information as to certain public employees not employed by NYPD is not dispositive. Matter of Empire Ctr. for Pub. Policy v New York City Off. of Payroll Admin., 2020 NY Slip Op 05449, First Dept 10-6-20

 

You might also like
PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION; THE ROPE AND FRAME USED TO PREVENT A HEAVY OBJECT FROM FALLING WHEN PLAINTIFF DETACHED IT FROM THE WALL DID NOT WORK (FIRST DEPT).
THE TRIAL JUDGE COMPLETELY BYPASSED THE BATSON PROCEDURE WHEN DEFENSE COUNSEL OBJECTED TO THE PEOPLE’S PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES TO FOUR JURORS; ALTHOUGH THE JURORS HAD BEEN EXCUSED, THE BATSON OBJECTION WAS TIMELY; ALTHOUGH THE ERROR WAS NOT PRESERVED, THE APPEAL WAS CONSIDERED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE; CONVICTION HELD IN ABEYANCE AND MATTER REMITTED; TWO JUSTICE DISSENT (FIRST DEPT).
DISMISSAL OF COMPLAINT TOO SEVERE A SANCTION FOR SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE, RELEVANT LAW CLEARLY EXPLAINED.
THERE WAS CONFLICTING EVIDENCE WHETHER PLAINTIFF, WHO HAD NO MEMORY OF THE ACCIDENT, FELL FROM AN A-FRAME LADDER OR A SCAFFOLD, BOTH WERE DEEMED INADEQUATE SAFETY DEVICES AND PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT).
Failure to Get Court’s Permission to Represent to a Grand Jury Required Dismissal of Indictment​
THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE FORKLIFT ACCIDENT RESULTED FROM A HOLE OR CRACK IN THE SIDEWALK ADJACENT TO THE OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD’S BUILDING; EVEN OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORDS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING THE ADJACENT SIDEWALK IN A REASONABLY SAFE CONDITION (FIRST DEPT).
TRIAL COURT’S DECLARING A MISTRIAL VIOLATED THE PARTIES’ STIPULATION PURSUANT TO THE SUMMARY JURY TRIAL RULES (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFFS’ CONCLUSORY ALLEGATIONS OF AN AGENCY RELATIONSHIP INSUFFICIENT TO DEMONSTRATE A BASIS FOR LONG-ARM JURISDICTION, MOTION TO DISMISS PROPERLY GRANTED.

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

COUNTY COURT’S ORDER MODIFIED TO ALLOW WITHHOLDING THE NAMES OF THE CONFIDENTIAL... PLAINTIFF HOMEOWNERS’ ACTION AGAINST THE INSURER FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT,...