You are here: / / THE FOIL REQUEST FOR RESPONDENT’S RECORDS FOR ALL CERTIFIED POLICE...

THE FOIL REQUEST FOR RESPONDENT’S RECORDS FOR ALL CERTIFIED POLICE OFFICERS COULD REVEAL THE IDENTITIES OF UNDERCOVER OFFICERS; THEREFORE THE REQUEST SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED; TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined the reporter’s FOIL request seeking records for all certified police officers from respondent’s central registry of police officers and peace officers should not have been granted because the records include undercover officers:

The in camera submissions reveal that, unlike the state registry, at least one police agency omits from its own public payroll database certain information about certified officers working undercover or in sensitive assignments to protect their safety and preserve confidentiality; again, the police agency submits information about those same officers to the state registry. This distinction in how respondent and a local law enforcement agency account for undercover officers would be evident to one who compares the department’s public payroll database to the list attributed by the state registry to that agency. Simply put, comparing the state registry to a local department’s publicly disclosed payroll database could reveal names of undercover officers that appear on the state registry but not on their employer’s redacted payroll database. Thus, respondent demonstrated that disclosure of the registry could endanger police officers who could be presumptively revealed by name as working undercover, thereby satisfying its burden to trigger the exemption under Public Officers Law § 87 (2) (f). Matter of Munson v New York State Div. of Criminal Justice Servs., 2026 NY Slip Op 02017, Third Dept 4-2-26

 

You might also like
FAILURE TO INFORM DEFENDANT OF THE PERIOD OF POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION AT THE TIME OF THE PLEA RENDERED THE PLEA INVALID.
EXCLUSION OF INJURY FROM ASSAULT CONTROLLED, NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION STEMMING FROM ASSAULT NOT COVERED.
Statements Made In Plea Allocution Negated Guilt
ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF SIGNED A RELEASE AND WAIVER OF LIABILITY BEFORE ATTENDING THE DEMOLITION DERBY, PLAINTIFF RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT UNREASONABLY INCREASED THE RISK BY FAILING TO INSTALL SUFFICIENT BARRIERS TO PROTECT SPECTATORS FROM THE VEHICLES IN THE DERBY (THIRD DEPT).
Petitioner Entitled to Attorney’s Fees Based on Respondent’s Failure to Timely Respond to Requests for Information
THE DECLARATORY RULING BY THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION (PSC) WAS FINAL AND THEREFORE WAS A PROPER SUBJECT OF AN ARTICLE 78 PETITION (THIRD DEPT).
Evidence Insufficient to Support Neglect Finding, Criteria Explained/Repetition of Child’s Out-of-Court Statement Does Not Corroborate It
ALL BUT ONE COUNT OF THE INDICTMENT WAS RENDERED DUPLICITOUS BY THE CHILD-VICTIM’S GRAND JURY TESTIMONY IN THIS SEXUAL ABUSE CASE; THE SIMILAR UNCHARGED OFFENSES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED UNDER MOLINEUX AS BACKGROUND EVIDENCE; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (THIRD 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

A MORE PROBING INQUIRY BY THE JUDGE WAS REQUIRED TO ENSURE THE MENTALLY DISABLED... IN A MATTER OF FIRST IMPRESSION, THE SECOND DEPARTMENT HELD THAT THE 90-DAY...