You are here: / THE NEWSPAPER’S FOIL REQUEST FOR POLICE DISCIPLINARY RECORDS, INCLUDING...

Search Results

/

THE NEWSPAPER’S FOIL REQUEST FOR POLICE DISCIPLINARY RECORDS, INCLUDING RECORDS OF UNSUBSTANTIATED ALLEGATIONS AND RECORDS CREATED BEFORE THE REPEAL OF CIVIL RIGHTS LAW 50-A, SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined petitioner-newspaper’s FOIL request for police disciplinary records, including records of allegations ruled unsubstantiated and records created before the repeal of Civil Rights Law 50-a, should have been granted:

… [T]he Supreme Court erred in concluding that the privacy exemption under Public Officers Law § 87(2)(b) creates a blanket exemption allowing the respondents to categorically withhold the disciplinary records of unsubstantiated allegations of misconduct … . Inasmuch as the respondents withheld the requested records containing unsubstantiated allegations of misconduct in their entirety and did not articulate any particularized and specific justification for withholding any of the records, the respondents did not meet their burden of establishing that the privacy exemption applies … . The respondents further failed to establish that “identifying details” in the records containing unsubstantiated allegations or complaints of misconduct “could not be redacted so as to not constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy” … .

… [E]ffective June 12, 2020, the New York State Legislature repealed Civil Rights Law § 50-a and amended the Public Officers Law to make specific provisions relating to the disclosure of law enforcement disciplinary records and the types of redactions to be made thereto prior to disclosure … . Thus, the statutory exemption under Public Officers Law § 87(2)(a) no longer applies to law enforcement personnel records. The bill repealing Civil Rights Law § 50-a also made several amendments to FOIL concerning disciplinary records of law enforcement agencies … . Of particular relevance here, Public Officers Law § 86 was amended by adding subdivisions (6) and (7), defining “[l]aw enforcement disciplinary records” and a “[l]aw enforcement disciplinary proceeding.”

Here, as the petitioner made the subject FOIL requests after the legislative amendments were enacted, the petitioner was not seeking retroactive application of the statutory amendments to a pending FOIL request … . Moreover, for the reasons set forth in Matter of Newsday, LLC v Nassau County Police Dept. (222 AD3d at 92-93), we reject the respondents’ contention that in amending the Public Officers Law to provide for the disclosure of records relating to law enforcement disciplinary proceedings, the Legislature intended to exclude from disclosure any law enforcement disciplinary records that were created prior to June 12, 2020 … .. Matter of Gannett Co., Inc. v Town of Greenburgh Police Dept., 2024 NY Slip Op 04071, Second Dept 7-31-24

Practice Point: Absent proof of some privacy exemption, police disciplinary records, including those involving unsubstantiated allegations and those created before the repeal of Civil Rights Law 50-a, may be provided pursuant to a FOIL request.

 

/ , ,

THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT WAS THE HOLDER OR ASSIGNEE OF THE NOTE AT THE TIME THE ACTION TO RECORD THE MORTGAGE WAS BROUGHT; THE BANK DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO BRING THE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bank did not demonstrate standing in 2017 to record a mortgage securing a note issued in 2008:

A plaintiff has standing where it is the holder or assignee of the underlying note at the time the action is commenced … . “Either a written assignment of the underlying note or the physical delivery of the note prior to the commencement of the . . . action is sufficient to transfer the obligation, and the mortgage passes with the debt as an inseparable incident” … . “[A]n assignment of a note and mortgage need not be in writing and can be effectuated by physical delivery” .. .

Here, the affidavits of Fernandez were insufficient to establish the plaintiff’s standing to record the mortgage. Although Fernandez’s second affidavit provided a proper foundation for the admission of business records, and attached a business record … , “[i]t is the business record itself, not the foundational affidavit, that serves as proof of the matter asserted” … . The business record attached to Fernandez’s second affidavit failed to establish, prima facie, that the plaintiff had possession of the note prior to commencing the instant action, as it failed to mention the defendant or otherwise identify the note to which it was referring. Moreover, the business record identifies itself merely as a “Certification.” It does not state when the note was either delivered to or assigned to the plaintiff. Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC v Healey, 2024 NY Slip Op 04054, Second Dept 7-31-24

Practice Point: Here the note was issued in 2008 and plaintiff bank sought to record the mortgage in 2017. The bank did not have standing to record the mortgage because it did not present proof it was the holder or assignee of the note when the action was brought.​

 

/

ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF FAILED TO TIE OFF HIS LANYARD, THAT FAILURE WAS NOT THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HIS INJURY; PLAINTIFF FELL WHEN A PLANK ON THE SCAFFOLD BROKE; PLAINTIFF SHOULD HAVE BEEN AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action. Plaintiff was wearing a safety harness with a lanyard when a coworker asked for help in securing the scaffold to the wall. Plaintiff was not able to hook his lanyard to the scaffold because he was carrying a pipe and a clamp, the lanyard was only four feet long, and he had to walk 20 feet to the wall. A plank on the scaffold broke and plaintiff fell. Supreme Court found that were questions of fact whether plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of his injury and whether he was a recalcitrant worker. Because the plank broke, plaintiff’s actions or omissions could not be the sole proximate cause of his injury:

… [T]he plaintiffs established, prima facie, that Labor Law § 240(1) was violated and that the violation was a proximate cause of the injured plaintiff’s injuries. The undisputed evidence established that the injured plaintiff was subjected to the elevation-related risk of the wooden plank which broke suddenly, causing the injured plaintiff to fall … .

In opposition to the plaintiffs’ prima facie showing, the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the injured plaintiff’s own conduct was the sole proximate cause of his injuries. Since the plaintiffs established a violation of Labor Law § 240(1) and that the violation was a proximate cause of the injured plaintiff’s fall, the injured plaintiff’s comparative negligence, if any, is not a defense to the cause of action alleging a violation of that statute … . Further, the defendants did not present evidence that the injured plaintiff was recalcitrant in the sense that he was instructed to tie and untie his lanyard to traverse the scaffold and refused to do so … . Amaro v New York City Sch. Constr. Auth., 2024 NY Slip Op 04052, Second Dept 7-31-24

Practice Point: As long as an elevation hazard is a cause of plaintiff’s injury (here a scaffold plank broke), whether an act or omission on plaintiff’s part (here the failure to hook up his lanyard) contributed to his injury is not an issue under Labor Law 240(1).

 

/ , ,

IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE MUNICIPALITY OWED A DUTY TO PLAINTIFF BASED UPON THE MUNICIPALITY’S LAUNCHING AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM; IT WAS ALLEGED THAT SALT APPLIED TO MELT ICE CREATED A POOL OF WATER WHICH FROZE AND CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S FALL (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined there was a question of fact whether the municipality, which had contracted with the school district to provide salting services, owed plaintiff a duty based upon the municipality’s launching an instrument of harm. It was alleged the defendant municipality’s use of salt to melt ice resulted in a frozen pool of water where plaintiff slipped and fell:

… [P]laintiffs submitted the affidavit of an expert, who opined that defendants’ use of sodium chloride (rock salt) created a dangerous condition and launched a force of harm because the rock salt would have caused water to flow and pool near the area where plaintiff fell. The expert further opined that, due to the temperatures on the date of the incident, the pooled water near the area of plaintiff’s fall would have refrozen quickly, thereby creating the alleged dangerous condition … . Plaintiffs also submitted the deposition testimony of defendants’ employee, who confirmed that during wintertime, when the temperature can fluctuate above and below freezing, water could accumulate in the parking lot where plaintiff fell, and that the accumulated water could then freeze when the temperature went below freezing … . We conclude that plaintiffs’ submissions raised a triable issue of fact whether defendants assumed a duty of care to plaintiff by launching the force or instrument of harm. Kirschler v Village of N. Collins, 2024 NY Slip Op 03977, Fourth Dept 7-26-24

Practice Point: Here the municipality entered a contract with the school district to salt the parking lot and other areas. There was a question of fact whether the application of salt launched an instrument of harm (forming a pool of water which froze causing plaintiff’s fall) thereby creating a duty owed plaintiff.

 

/ , , ,

A WITNESS IS NOT UNAVAILABLE TO TESTIFY AT A TRIAL BASED UPON THE FEAR OF COMMITTING PERJURY DURING THAT TRIAL; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing the judgment and ordering a new trial, determined a witness was not be unavailable to testify at the trial based upon her fear she would commit perjury at the trial:

“A witness may not claim the privilege of the [F]ifth [A]mendment out of fear that he [or she] will be prosecuted for perjury for what he [or she] is about to say. The shield against self-incrimination in such a situation is to testify truthfully, not to refuse to testify on the basis that the witness may be prosecuted for a lie not yet told” … . “Fear of a perjury prosecution can typically form a valid basis for invoking the Fifth Amendment only where the risk of prosecution is for perjury in the witness’ past testimony” … .

“[T]he court focuses inquiry on what a truthful answer might disclose, rather than on what information is expected by the questioner” … . Simply put, the Fifth Amendment “does not permit a witness to invoke the privilege on the ground that he [or she] anticipates committing perjury sometime in the future” … . There is “no doctrine of ‘anticipatory perjury’ ” … . * * *

We … conclude that the court erred in declaring the victim unavailable and allowing her testimony from the first trial to be read to the jury at the retrial. Inasmuch as the victim was the only person who identified defendant as the person who shot her, we cannot conclude that the evidence of defendant’s guilt is overwhelming, and therefore the error cannot be deemed harmless … . People v Smith, 2024 NY Slip Op 03973, Fourth Dept 7-26-24

Practice Point: The Fifth Amendment does not permit a witness to invoke the self-incrimination privilege on the ground the witness anticipates committing perjury in the future.

 

/ , ,

THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR APPOINTED TO HANDLE DEFENDANT’S CASE DID NOT MEET THE QUALIFICATIONS IN THE COUNTY LAW; CONVICTIONS REVERSED AND INDICTMENT DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department reversed the convictions and dismissed the indictment because the special prosecutor appointed to handle the case did not meet the statutory qualifications:

“County Law § 701 (1) allows a court to appoint a special district attorney in situations where the district attorney is ‘disqualified from acting in a particular case to discharge his or her duties at a term of any court’ ” … . The Court of Appeals, “[a]cknowledging that a court’s authority under County Law § 701 ‘to displace a duly elected [d]istrict [a]ttorney’ raises separation of power concerns, [has] cautioned that ‘[t]his exceptional superseder authority should not be expansively interpreted’ ” … . As relevant here, section 701 (1) (a) explicitly limits the superseding authority of a court to “appoint[ing] some attorney at law having an office in or residing in the county, or any adjoining county, to act as special district attorney.” Where, as here, a court exceeds its authority by appointing a special district attorney who does not meet those statutory requirements, “[t]he indictment must be dismissed to preserve the integrity of a statute designed narrowly by its terms and by its purpose to fill emergency gaps in an elected prosecutorial official’s responsibility” … . People v Callara, 2024 NY Slip Op 03969, Fourth Dept 7-26-24

Practice Point: If the special prosecutor appointed to handle defendant’s case does not meet the qualifications in the County Law, the convictions will be reversed and the indictment dismissed.

 

/

THE PURPOSE OF PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR CONTACT INFORMATION ABOUT EACH COUNTY EMPLOYEE WAS TO CONVINCE THE EMPLOYEES TO OPT OUT OF JOINING A UNION; NO GOVERNMENTAL PURPOSE WOULD BE SERVED BY PUBLIC DISCLOSURE OF THE INFORMATION; THE FOIL PRIVACY EXEMPTION APPLIES (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the privacy provisions in the Public Officers Law shielded the county from the petitioner’s request for information about each employee. “With respect to each employee, petitioner sought the employee’s first name, middle name, last name, gender, public office address, job title, hire date, agency or department, work email address “or naming convention and domain,” work telephone number, and bargaining unit. In addition, petitioner sought “to receive the responsive information electronically in machine-readable format.” The Fourth Department found that the request was made to facilitate petitioner’s campaign to prevent county employees from joining a union:

It is evident here that petitioner’s intent, which “drives [our] analysis” … , in requesting the employees’ names, contact information, and union status, is to contact union members to urge them to opt out of union membership. Indeed, petitioner states in its brief on appeal that it “contacts public employees for the purposes of its educational mission through . . . a project” that it calls ” ‘Opt-Out Today.’ ” There is no indication that petitioner “intends to use the names to, for example, expose governmental abuses or evaluate governmental activities” … . Nor, as petitioner asserts, does the “natural and obvious meaning” we assign to the term “solicitation” conflict “with the legislative intent and . . . general purpose and manifest policy underlying FOIL” … . “If anything, it is precisely because no governmental purpose is served by public disclosure of this information that section 87 (2) (b)’s privacy exemption falls squarely within FOIL’s statutory scheme” … . Matter of Freedom Found. v Jefferson County, 2024 NY Slip Op 03944, Fourth Dept 7-26-24

Practice Point: Here the disclosure of contact information for county employees did not serve a governmental purpose and was prohibited by FOIL’s privacy exemption.

 

/ ,

DEFENDANT WAS ACQUITTED OF MENACING AT THE FIRST TRIAL BUT THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THE MENACING CHARGES WAS ALLOWED IN THE SECOND TRIAL; THE COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL DOCTRINE PRECLUDED PRESENTATION OF THAT EVIDENCE IN THE SECOND TRIAL; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s convictions and ordering a new trial, determined defendant’s acquittal of menacing in his first trial precluded evidence defendant displayed a firearm during a confrontation in the second trial:

At his second trial, the People were permitted to introduce in their case-in-chief, over defendant’s objection, the testimony of an eyewitness that, during a confrontation in a park that occurred prior to the shooting, defendant had pulled out a gun and waved it at the victim, and had cocked the gun and pointed it at the eyewitness. We agree with defendant that, under the circumstances here, the People were collaterally estopped by the earlier verdict from presenting evidence at defendant’s second trial concerning the alleged display of a gun during the earlier confrontation at the park … .

The doctrine of collateral estoppel “operates in a criminal prosecution to bar relitigation of issues necessarily resolved in defendant’s favor at an earlier trial” … . “[W]here the People have had a full and fair opportunity to contest issues, but have failed, it would be inequitable and harassive to again permit the prosecution to establish these same matters, as if the first trial had never taken place” … . Only those facts that were “necessarily decided” by a prior acquittal will have collateral estoppel effect in a subsequent prosecution … . Although it may “normally be impossible to ascertain the exact import of a verdict,” we are charged with giving “a practical, rational reading to the record of the first trial” to determine “whether a rational jury could have grounded its decision on an issue other than that which the defendant seeks to foreclose from consideration” … .

Here, the two menacing counts alleged that defendant intentionally placed or attempted to place another person in reasonable fear of physical injury, serious physical injury, or death by displaying what appeared to be a firearm, on the basis of his alleged actions at the park shortly before the murder. The eyewitness’s testimony at the first trial was the only evidence supporting the menacing counts. People v Moore, 2024 NY Slip Op 03941, Fourth Dept 7-26-24

Practice Point: Evidence supporting charges of which defendant was acquitted in the first trial cannot be presented in the second trial.

 

/ , ,

A COUNTY RECYCLING TRUCK IS NOT ENGAGED IN ROAD WORK AND THEREFORE IS NOT EXEMPT FROM THE RULES OF THE ROAD UNDER THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court in this traffic accident case, determined a county recycling truck was not engaged in the type of road work which is exempted from the rules of the road under the Vehicle and Traffic Law. The related affirmative defense should have been dismissed:

Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1103 (b) provides that the rules of the road do not apply to “persons, teams, motor vehicles, and other equipment while actually engaged in work on a highway” … . “[T]he law was intended to exempt from the rules of the road all teams and vehicles that ‘build highways, repair or maintain them, paint the pavement markings, remove the snow, sand the pavement and do similar work’ . . . Thus, the exemption turns on the nature of the work being performed (construction, repair, maintenance or similar work)—not on the nature of the vehicle performing the work” … .

Inasmuch as municipal refuse collection does not involve building, repairing, or maintaining highways, painting pavement markings, removing snow, sanding the pavement, or doing other similar work (see id.) and is “a task which one would anticipate could be accomplished while obeying the rules of the road”…, we conclude that Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1103 does not apply to the facts presented here … . In reaching that conclusion, we note that the 2016 amendment to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 117-a (L 2016, ch 293, § 1)—which broadened the definition of “hazard vehicle” to include sani-vans and waste collection vehicles—did not broaden the scope of work that would constitute “engag[ing] in work on a highway” … .

Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1103 (b) further provides that section 1202 (a)—which regulates stopping, standing, and parking—does not apply to “hazard vehicles while actually engaged in hazardous operation on or adjacent to a highway” … . That provision, however, does not shield defendants from the allegations of negligence raised by plaintiff, i.e., violations of the right-of-way provisions of Article 26 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, including, inter alia, sections 1140, 1142 (a), and 1146 (b). Rouse v City of Syracuse Dept. of Pub. Works, 2024 NY Slip Op 03938, Fourth Dept 7-26-24

Practice Point: A county recycling truck is not engaged in road work and therefore is not exempt from the rules of the road under the Vehicle and Traffic Law.

 

/ ,

THE CONTRACT AT ISSUE WAS NOT FOR THE “SALE OF GOODS” AND THEREFORE WAS NOT SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE (UCC) (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the contract at issue was not for the “sale of goods” and therefore was not subject to the requirements of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC):

Plaintiff and defendant signed a one-page “independent contractor and consultant” contract pursuant to which plaintiff agreed to sell certain minimum amounts of concrete on behalf of defendant (minimum) in return for monthly payments. During the term of the contract, defendant ceased making its monthly payments to plaintiff and terminated the contract, claiming that plaintiff had sold less than 10% of the minimum and failed to provide defendant with an adequate assurance that it could sell the remaining quantity by the end of the contract term. * * *

The dispositive issue before this Court is whether defendant was justified in demanding “adequate assurance of due performance” from plaintiff pursuant to UCC 2-609 (1). If article 2 of the UCC applies and if “adequate assurance is not forthcoming, repudiation is deemed confirmed, and the nonbreaching party is allowed to take reasonable actions as though a repudiation had occurred” … . Article 2 of the UCC applies only to agreements that are “predominantly . . . for the sale of goods, as opposed to the furnishing of services” … . “In determining whether a contract is for the sale of property or services the main objective sought to be accomplished by the contracting parties must be looked for” … .

Here, plaintiff met its initial burden on the motion of establishing that the contract was not predominately for the sale of goods. Pursuant to the contract, plaintiff agreed to provide services to defendant, i.e., to sell the concrete. The contract did not require plaintiff to purchase any products from defendant. Plaintiff therefore demonstrated that the UCC did not apply here, that defendant did not have the right to demand adequate assurance of performance … . Dreamco Dev. Corp. v Cranesville Block Co., Inc., 2024 NY Slip Op 03937, Fourth Dept 7-26-24

Practice Point: The first question to ask in a breach of contract action is whether the contract is for the “sale of goods.” If not, the UCC does not apply.

 

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