You are here: / / PETITIONER WAS ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES AS THE PREVAILING PARTY...
,

PETITIONER WAS ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES AS THE PREVAILING PARTY BECAUSE THE POLICE DEPARTMENT TURNED OVER THE REQUESTED BODY CAM VIDEOS VOLUNTARILY WHILE THE PROCEEDING WAS PENDING; THE RESPONDENTS HAD NO REASONABLE BASIS FOR DENYING THE REQUEST (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined petitioner was entitled to attorney’s fees in this FOIL action which sought police body cam videos for an incident involving deadly force. Petitioner was the prevailing party because the respondents voluntarily provided the videos while the proceeding was pending:

… [P]etitioner substantially prevailed when respondents, during the pendency of this proceeding, disclosed the records sought in the FOIL request … . “[T]he voluntariness of . . . disclosure is irrelevant to the issue of whether petitioner substantially prevailed” … . …

… [R]espondents had no reasonable basis for denying access to the records sought. To invoke the FOIL exemption applicable to records that ‘are compiled for law enforcement purposes and which, if disclosed, would . . . interfere with law enforcement investigations’ … , an ‘agency must identify the generic kinds of documents for which the exemption is claimed, and the generic risks posed by disclosure of these categories of documents’ … . ‘Put slightly differently, the agency must still fulfill its burden under Public Officers Law § 89(4)(b) to articulate a factual basis for the exemption’ … . In response to the FOIL request, NYPD did identify the generic kinds of documents at issue; it is undisputed that the responsive records, which have now been disclosed, were videos recorded by body cameras worn by NYPD officers during an incident in which NYPD used deadly force. However, NYPD’s assertions in response to the FOIL request that disclosure would interfere with an ongoing internal investigation into the incident, which was being conducted by the Force Investigation Division at the time, was conclusory in the absence of any factual showing as to how disclosure would have interfered with that investigation.” Matter of Dioso Faustino Freedom of Info. Law Request v New York City, 2021 NY Slip Op 00907, First Dept 2-11-21

 

You might also like
POLICE BODY-WORN-CAMERA FOOTAGE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A PERSONNEL RECORD AND IS NOT THEREFORE PROTECTED FROM RELEASE TO THE PUBLIC BY CIVIL RIGHTS LAW 50-a (FIRST DEPT).
IN THIS CROSSWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE, THE FACT THAT THE MUNICIPALITY REPAIRED THE AREA FIVE MONTHS BEFORE DID NOT CONSTITUTE AN EXCEPTION TO THE PRIOR WRITTEN NOTICE REQUIREMENT (FIRST DEPT).
EXPERT EVIDENCE IMPROPERLY PRECLUDED, NEW TRIAL BEFORE A DIFFERENT JUDGE ORDERED.
THE COMPLAINT, STEMMING FROM A FALL OFF A STRETCHER WHILE BEING POSITIONED FOR AN X-RAY, SOUNDED IN MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, NOT NEGLIGENCE, AND WAS THEREFORE UNTIMELY, PROPOSED NEGLIGENT HIRING CAUSE OF ACTION COULD NOT BE ADDED UNDER THE RELATION BACK DOCTRINE (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF FELL DOWN AN OPEN, UNGUARDED MANHOLE AS HE ATTEMPTED TO STEP OVER IT; PLAINTIFF’S ACTION WAS NOT THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE FALL BECAUSE THERE WAS NO PROTECTIVE RAILING AROUND THE MANHOLE (FIRST DEPT). ​
PLAINTIFF, WHO WAS ASSAULTED IN DEFENDANT LANDLORD’S BUILDING, DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE ASSAILANT WAS AN INTRUDER, WHO ENTERED THROUGH AN ALLEGEDLY BROKEN DOOR, OR A TENANT OR AN INVITEE; IF THE ASSAILANT WERE A TENANT OR INVITEE, THE ALLEGEDLY BROKEN DOOR WOULD NOT BE A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S INJURY (FIRST DEPT).
A DEFAMATION COMPLAINT DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION LACKS A “SUBSTANTIAL BASIS IN LAW” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE ANTI-SLAPP LAW (FIRST DEPT). ​
Hearsay Can Not Be Sole Basis for Denial of Summary Judgment Motion

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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

PETITIONERS WERE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY DETERMINATION IN THIS EXECUTIVE LAW 63... FRAUD WAS NOT ADEQUATELY PLED, THE SIX-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DID NOT APPLY...