You are here: / / FOIL REQUEST FOR TRAFFIC VIOLATIONS BUREAU (TVB) RECORDS RELEVANT TO A...

FOIL REQUEST FOR TRAFFIC VIOLATIONS BUREAU (TVB) RECORDS RELEVANT TO A TRAFFIC ACCIDENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined petitioner’s FOIL request for the records relevant to a traffic accident from the Traffic Violations Bureau (TVB) should have been granted:

The only FOIL exemption at issue in this case applies to records that “are compiled for law enforcement purposes and which, if disclosed, would . . . interfere with . . . judicial proceedings” (Public Officers Law § 87[2][e][i]).

… [W]e find that Traffic Violations Bureau (TVB) hearings are “judicial proceedings” … . The TVB of the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles, an administrative agency that was legislatively created to adjudicate traffic violation charges for the purpose of reducing caseloads of courts in New York City … . At a TVB hearing, the accused motorist has a right to be represented by counsel … and the administrative law judge presiding over the hearing must determine whether the police officer has established the charges by clear and convincing evidence … . Although the CPL and the CPLR are generally “not binding on” TVB … , it has been held that the motorist “is entitled to the issuance of a properly worded judicial subpoena duces tecum under CPLR 2307 requiring the production of relevant records” … .

… NYPD asserts that any release of documents would somehow tip the hand of the TVB’s prosecuting attorney or prevent the prosecutor from testing the recollection of witnesses. Yet, NYPD concedes that these documents would be released to the motorist who would not be under any legal admonition not to release the documents to others. Matter of Jewish Press, Inc. v New York City Police Dept., 2021 NY Slip Op 00119, First Dept 1-12-21

 

You might also like
THE FACT THAT PLAINTIFF COULD NOT EXPLAIN HOW THE IMPROPERLY SECURED BEAM WHICH STRUCK HIM FELL DID NOT PRECLUDE PLAINTIFF FROM BEING AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) ACTION (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS SHOT INSIDE DEFENDANT’S BUILDING, DEFENDANT LANDLORD DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF AN ALLEGED BROKEN LOCK, THE EVIDENCE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE ASSAILANT WAS AN INTRUDER AS OPPOSED TO AN INVITED GUEST, AND THERE WAS EVIDENCE PLAINTIFF WAS THE VICTIM OF A TARGETED ATTACK, DEFENDANT LANDLORD’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
THE VICTIM OF THE ASSAULT AND ATTEMPTED ROBBERY COULD NOT IDENTIFY THE DEFENDANT; THE VIDEO OF THE INCIDENT DIDN’T HELP; DEFENDANT WAS ARRESTED BECAUSE HE WAS DEPICTED IN SURVEILLANCE VIDEO NEAR THE SCENE WEARING DISTINCTIVE RIPPED AND PATCHED PANTS WHICH WERE NOT MENTIONED BY THE VICTIM OR DEPICTED IN THE INCIDENT VIDEO; THE ARREST WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY PROBABLE CAUSE; INDICTMENT DISMISSED AFTER GUILTY PLEA (FIRST DEPT).
Where a Client’s Claims Against an Attorney Arise from the Attorney’s Providing Legal Services Which Are Related In Part to the Attorney’s Business Enterprise, the “Business Enterprise” Coverage Exclusions In the Legal Malpractice Insurance Policy Are Triggered
PLAINTIFF, UNDER NEW JERSEY LAW, SUFFICIENTLY PLED A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH DEFENDANT BANK GIVING RISE TO A DUTY TO ENFORCE ITS ANTI-FRAUD PROCEDURES; PLAINTIFF WIRED $300,000 TO AN ACCOUNT WHICH HAD BEEN SET UP TO DEFRAUD PLAINTIFF (FIRST DEPT).
THE FACT THAT PLAINTIFF ATTORNEY (1) WAS AN AT-WILL EMPLOYEE AND (2) MAY NOT BE PAID WITHIN ONE YEAR DID NOT RENDER THE ORAL CONTRACT ENTITLING PLAINTIFF TO LEGAL FEES VOID UNDER THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS, BREACH OF IMPLIED CONTRACT AND UNJUST ENRICHMENT CAUSES WERE PROPERLY PLED IN THE ALTERNATIVE (FIRST DEPT).
Plea Colloquy of Co-Defendant Was Inadmissible Hearsay—Court’s Granting of Defendant’s Request to Have the Colloquy Read to the Jury Over Defense Counsel’s Objection Deprived Defendant of His Right To Counsel
Height Differential Need Only Be More than “De Minimis”

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’S MOTION TO SEVER THE TWO OFFENSES, WHICH OCCURRED ON DIFFERENT... THE PROPERTY OWNERS AND THE SECURITY COMPANY WERE PROPERLY FOUND LIABLE FOR...