You are here: / / TRAFFIC AND PARKING VIOLATIONS AGENCY IS A HYBRID AGENCY PLAYING BOTH JUDICIAL...

TRAFFIC AND PARKING VIOLATIONS AGENCY IS A HYBRID AGENCY PLAYING BOTH JUDICIAL AND PROSECUTORIAL ROLES, ALTHOUGH DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THE JUDICIAL ROLE ARE EXEMPT FROM FOIL DISCLOSURE, DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THE PROSECUTORIAL ROLE ARE NOT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department sent the matter back to Supreme Court to determine whether documents sought by petitioner under the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) were exempt from disclosure. The documents (re: the photo speed monitoring system) are held by the Nassau Court Traffic and Parking Violations Agency (TPVA). Supreme Court found that the TPVA was exempt from as part of the judiciary. However, although part of the TPVA’s role is judicial, there are aspects of the agency which are prosecutorial. Supreme Court should have reviewed the documents to see whether the judiciary exemption applies to all the requested documents:

​

FOIL applies to “agency” records, but its definition of “agency” expressly excludes the “judiciary” … . FOIL defines “judiciary” as “the courts of the state, including any municipal or district court, whether or not of record” … , the Court of Appeals stated that for purposes of jurisdiction over certain matters, the TPVA is “an arm of the District Court,” so that matters pending in the TPVA are considered to be pending in the District Court. Accordingly, it is indisputable that, at least for certain purposes, the TPVA is part of the judiciary. The Supreme Court erred, however, in holding that the TPVA is entirely judicial and thus not subject to FOIL at all. The Court of Appeals expressly recognized in Matter of Dolce v Nassau County Traffic & Parking Violations Agency that the TPVA is a “hybrid agency that exercises both prosecutorial and adjudicatory responsibilities,” and that the prosecutorial function is “distinct from the adjudicatory function” (id. at 498). Accordingly, to the extent that a TPVA record concerns the nonadjudicatory responsibilities of the TPVA, it is not exempt from disclosure under the definition of “agency” in Public Officers Law § 86(3). Without examination of the records that the petitioner seeks, the Supreme Court cannot make a determination as to whether they are exempt from disclosure as records of the “judiciary” … . Matter of Law Offs. of Cory H. Morris v County of Nassau, 2018 NY Slip Op 00835, Second Dept 2-7-18

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW (FOIL) (TRAFFIC AND PARKING VIOLATIONS AGENCY IS A HYBRID AGENCY PLAYING BOTH JUDICIAL AND PROSECUTORIAL ROLES, ALTHOUGH DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THE JUDICIAL ROLE ARE EXEMPT FROM FOIL, DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THE PROSECUTORIAL ROLE ARE NOT (SECOND DEPT))/TRAFFIC AND PARKING VIOLATIONS AGENCY (FOIL, TRAFFIC AND PARKING VIOLATIONS AGENCY IS A HYBRID AGENCY PLAYING BOTH JUDICIAL AND PROSECUTORIAL ROLES, ALTHOUGH DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THE JUDICIAL ROLE ARE EXEMPT FROM FOIL, DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THE PROSECUTORIAL ROLE ARE NOT (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
A SIGNED CONSENT FORM ALONE DOES NOT PRECLUDE A LACK-OF-INFORMED-CONSENT CAUSE OF ACTION IN A MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE (SECOND DEPT).
Father’s Petition to Relocate to North Carolina Properly Denied
DEFENSE COUNSEL’S REMARKS ALLEGING PLAINTIFF AND HER ATTORNEY FABRICATED EVIDENCE IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE DENIED PLAINTIFF A FAIR TRIAL (SECOND DEPT).
THE BANKS’ COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 WAS NOT DEMONSTRATED; THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE GRANTED MOTION FOR FINDINGS TO ENABLE CHILD TO PETITION FOR SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS (SIJS).
GROSS NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION AND DEMAND FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES IN THIS OIL-CONTAMINATION-REMEDIATION ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, CAUSES OF ACTION IN AMENDED COMPLAINT RELATED BACK TO THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT AND WERE NOT TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT).
THE 2020 AMENDMENTS TO THE ANTI-SLAPP STATUTE DO NOT APPLY AS A DEFENSE TO THIS DEFAMATION ACTION BASED UPON DEFENDANTS’ CRITICISM OF PLAINTIFF DOG-GROOMER POSTED ON SOCIAL MEDIA (SECOND DEPT).
The Defendant Had an Expectation of Privacy In an Envelope Containing His Personal Belongings—The Belongings Were Placed in the Envelope Upon Defendant’s Admission to a Hospital—Even though the Police Were Under the Impression the Defendant Was a Crime Victim, Not a Perpetrator, at the Time the Contents of the Envelope Were Examined, the Search Was Not Justified—Defendant Had an Expectation of Privacy Re: the Contents of the Envelope—The People Were Unable to Meet their “Burden of Going Forward” at the Suppression Hearing Because They Could Not Demonstrate the Legality of the Police Conduct

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

CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF PAROLE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN HELD IN CONTEMPT FOR FAILURE... CIVIL CONSPIRACY CANNOT BE BROUGHT AS AN INDEPENDENT TORT IN NEW YORK (SECOND...