You are here: / SANCTIONS FOR NEGLIGENT SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE REQUIRE A SHOWING OF THE...

Search Results

/ ,

SANCTIONS FOR NEGLIGENT SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE REQUIRE A SHOWING OF THE RELEVANCE OF THE LOST EVIDENCE; AN ADVERSE INFERENCE JURY INSTRUCTION MAY BE APPROPRIATE FOR NEGLIGENT SPOLIATION.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Pigott, over an extensive dissenting opinion by Judge Stein (in which Judge Rivera concurred), determined the record supported a finding that defendant was negligent in failing to preserve electronic evidence and remitted the matter to Supreme Court for a determination of the relevance of the lost evidence and a sanction, if deemed appropriate. The court noted that, even where spoliation is the result of simple negligence, an adverse inference jury instruction may be appropriate. The court explained the applicable law as follows:

A party that seeks sanctions for spoliation of evidence must show that the party having control over the evidence possessed an obligation to preserve it at the time of its destruction, that the evidence was destroyed with a “culpable state of mind,” and “that the destroyed evidence was relevant to the party’s claim or defense such that the trier of fact could find that the evidence would support that claim or defense” … . Where the evidence is determined to have been intentionally or wilfully destroyed, the relevancy of the destroyed documents is presumed … . On the other hand, if the evidence is determined to have been negligently destroyed, the party seeking spoliation sanctions must establish that the destroyed documents were relevant to the party’s claim or defense … .

On this appeal, we are asked to decide whether the Appellate Division erred in reversing an order of Supreme Court that imposed a spoliation sanction on the defendants. We hold that it did, and remand the matter to the trial court for a determination as to whether the evidence, which the Appellate Division found to be negligently destroyed, was relevant to the claims asserted against defendants and for the imposition of an appropriate sanction, should the trial court deem, in its discretion, that a sanction is warranted. * * *

… [A]dverse inference charges have been found to be appropriate even in situations where the evidence has been found to have been negligently destroyed … . Pegasus Aviation I, Inc. v Varig Logistica S.A., 2015 NY Slip Op 09187, CtApp 12-15-15

CIVIL PROCEDURE (NEGLIGENT SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE, RELEVANCE MUST BE DEMONSTRATED)/EVIDENCE (NEGLIGENT SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE, RELEVANCE MUST BE DEMONSTRATED)/SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE (NEGLIGENT SPOLIATION, RELEVANCE MUST BE DEMONSTRATED)/SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE (ADVERSE INFERENCE JURY INSTRUCTION)/ADVERSE INFERENCE JURY INSTRUCTION (NEGLIGENT SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE)/JURY INSTRUCTIONS (ADVERSE INFERENCE, NEGLIGENT SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE)

/

DEFENDANT UNABLE TO DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFF DID NOT KNOW THE CAUSE OF HIS FALL; DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The First Department, over a dissent, determined defendant did not demonstrate, as a matter of law, that plaintiff did not know the cause of his slip and fall.  Therefore, defendant’s motion for summary judgment should not have been granted:

… [P]laintiff, who testified at his depositions through a Spanish interpreter, testified at his first deposition that upon exiting the convenience store he “stepped like on a hole,” and that he “stepped on something” on the defective ramp which caused his ankle to twist and him to fall to the ground. He further testified at that deposition that “[w]hen [he] stepped, it was that [he] felt like something — – that something was not right underneath,” “[l]ike [he] stepped on something not solid.” That plaintiff could not initially identify the location of his accident, based upon photographs he was shown at his first deposition that depicted only the bottom portion of a door with no other identifying features, is hardly surprising and not dispositive. Upon being shown, at his second deposition, additional photographs depicting the full entrance area and front of the convenience store, plaintiff was able to definitively identify and mark with an “X” the area on the ramp which was “not leveled” and caused him to fall … . Taveras v 1149 Webster Realty Corp., 2015 NY Slip Op 09192, 1st Dept 12-15-15

MONTHLY COMPILATION INDEX ENTRIES:

NEGLIGENCE (DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFF DID NOT KNOW CAUSE OF HIS FALL)/SLIP AND FALL (DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFF DID NOT KNOW THE CAUSE OF HIS FALL)

/ ,

A CONTRACTUAL NEW YORK CHOICE OF LAW PROVISION OVERRIDES AN OTHERWISE APPLICABLE NEW YORK STATUTORY CHOICE OF LAW PROVISION WHICH WOULD REQUIRE THE APPLICATION OF ANOTHER STATE’S LAW.

In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Stein, over an extensive dissenting opinion by Judge Abdus-Salaam (in which Judge Rivera concurred), the Court of Appeals determined the New York choice of law provision in decedent's retirement and death benefit plans required the application of New York law, even though, under the facts, an otherwise applicable New York statutory choice of law provision required the application of Colorado law.  Decedent was enrolled in both retirement and death benefit plans. He made his wife the beneficiary of the plans and his wife's father the contingent beneficiary. Decedent and his wife divorced and decedent died in Colorado. If the otherwise applicable New York statutory choice of law provision applied, the effect of the divorce would be determined by Colorado law (where decedent died). Under Colorado law, the divorce removed both decedent's wife and her father as beneficiaries of the plans. Under New York law only the wife was removed and her father remained.  The choice of law provision in the retirement and death benefit plans was deemed to supersede the otherwise applicable New York statutory choice of law provision (which would have required analysis under Colorado law):

… [W]e should apply the most reasonable interpretation of the contract language that effectuates the parties' intended and expressed choice of law … . To do otherwise — by applying New York's statutory conflict-of-laws principles, even if doing so results in the application of the substantive law of another state — would contravene the primary purpose of including a choice-of-law provision in a contract — namely, to avoid a conflict-of-laws analysis and its associated time and expense. Such an interpretation would also interfere with, and ignore, the parties' intent, contrary to the basic tenets of contract interpretation. Ministers & Missionaries Benefit Bd. v Snow, 2015 NY Slip Op 09186, CtApp 12-15-15

CIVIL PROCEDURE (CONTRACTUAL CHOICE OF LAW PROVISION OVERRIDES STATUTORY CHOICE OF LAW PROVISION)/CONTRACT LAW (CONTRACTUAL CHOICE OF LAW PROVISION OVERRIDES STATUTORY CHOICE OF LAW PROVISON)/CHOICE OF LAW (CONTRACTUAL PROVISION OVERRIDES STATUTORY PROVISION)/CONFLICT OF LAWS (CONTRACTUAL CHOICE OF LAW PROVISION OVERRIDES STATUTORY CHOICE OF LAW PROVISION)

/

INFORMATION ADEQUATELY ALLEGED CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE; THE APPEARANCE OF BURNT RESIDUE IN A GLASS PIPE, TOGETHER WITH ALLEGATIONS THE OFFICER HAD THE REQUISITE TRAINING AND EXPERIENCE SUFFICIENT.

The Court of Appeals determined the heightened requirements for a misdemeanor information were met by the information charging defendant with criminal possession of a controlled substance seventh degree:

Here, …  the information was facially sufficient because it contained adequate allegations that the officer had the requisite training and experience to recognize the substance in defendant's possession as a controlled substance and that the officer reached his conclusion about the nature of the substance based on its appearance and placement within a favored apparatus of drug users, a glass pipe.

That the substance at issue here was a burnt residue does not dictate a different result. …[A]n information's description of the characteristics of a substance combined with its account of an officer's training in identifying such substances, the packaging of such substance and the presence of drug paraphernalia, can support the inference that the officer properly recognized the substance as a controlled substance. People v Smalls, 2015 NY Slip Op 09188, CtApp 12-15-15

CRIMINAL LAW (SUFFICIENCY OF MISDEMEANOR INFORMATION, POSSESSION OF CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE)/MISDEMEANOR INFORMATION (SUFFICIENT ALLEGATION OF POSSESSION OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE)/POSSESSION OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE (SUFFICIENCY OF MISDEMEANOR INFORMATION)

/

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, DRIVER’S LICENSES. COMMISSIONER OF MOTOR VEHICLES HAS THE POWER TO DENY RELICENSING TO DRIVER CONVICTED OF DWI WHO HAD TWO SIX POINT SPEEDING TICKETS DURING THE LOOK-BACK PERIOD.

The Third Department, over a dissent, determined the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, pursuant to the new DWI relicensing regulations, properly refused to relicense petitioner, who had been convicted of three alcohol-related offenses during ten years, based upon two six point speeding tickets during the look-back period. The question presented was whether two five point speeding tickets could properly constitute a “serious driving offense” justifying a denial of relicensing. The majority concluded the relevant regulation was a valid exercise of the Commissioner’s powers. The court noted that the Commissioner has the discretion to grant a license under unusual, extenuating and compelling circumstances, but petitioner did not make an application under that provision:

In the broadest sense, 15 NYCRR part 136 was promulgated to “establish[] criteria to identify individual problem drivers,” that is, applicants for new licenses that “ha[ve] had a series of convictions, incidents and/or accidents . . . which in the judgment of the [C]ommissioner . . . upon review of the applicant’s entire driving history, establishes that the person would be an unusual and immediate risk upon the highways” (15 NYCRR 136.1 [a], [b] [1]). In developing these regulations, the Commissioner considered empirical data, which indicated that drivers with three or more alcohol- or drug-related driving convictions are involved in a disproportionate number of motor vehicle accidents. Accordingly, the Commissioner rationally determined that such drivers “pose the highest risk to the general population” (NY Reg, Mar. 13, 2013 at 43) and, thus, should not be granted new, unrestricted licenses until after a waiting period of several years (see 15 NYCRR 136.5 [b] [3], [4]). With that in mind, we cannot consider the Commissioner’s decision to subject such recidivist impaired or intoxicated drivers to a longer — or even a presumptively permanent — ban on relicensure to be arbitrary when, like petitioner, such drivers may independently qualify as “problem drivers” because of the presence of speeding or other violations on their driving records (see 15 NYCRR 136.1 [b] [1]; 136.5 [a] [2]; [b] [2]).

As for petitioner’s claim that her two six-point speeding violations during the 25-year look-back period are not serious enough to be expressly defined as a “serious driving offense” (see 15 NYCRR [a] [2] [iii]), we defer to the Commissioner’s determination, as it was made pursuant to her discretionary authority (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 510 [5], [6]), and it was within the area of expertise of the agency she headds … . Matter of Matsen v New York State Dept. of Motor Vehs., 2015 NY Slip Op 09159, 3rd Dept 12-10-15

 

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (DRIVER’S LICENSES, COMMISSIONER HAS POWER TO DENY RELICENSING A DRIVER CONVICTED OF DWI BASED UPON TWO FIVE-POINT SPEEDING TICKETS)/DRIVER’S LICENSES (RELICENSING OF DRIVER CONVICTED OF DWI CAN BE DENIED BASED UPON TWO FIVE POINT SPEEDING TICKETS)/SPEEDING TICKETS (TWO FIVE POINT SPEEDS CONSTITUTE A SERIOUS DRIVING OFFENSE FOR WHICH RELICENSING CAN BE DENIED TO A DRIVER CONVICTED OF DWI)/RELICENSING OF DRIVERS CONVICTED OF DWI (CAN BE DENIED BASED UPON TWO FIVE POINT SPEEDING TICKETS)

/

COMMISSIONER OF MOTOR VEHICLES HAS THE POWER TO DENY RELICENSING TO DRIVER CONVICTED OF DWI WHO HAD TWO SIX POINT SPEEDING TICKETS DURING THE LOOK-BACK PERIOD.

The Third Department, over a dissent, determined the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, pursuant to the new DWI relicensing regulations, properly refused to relicense petitioner, who had been convicted of three alcohol-related offenses during ten years, based upon two six point speeding tickets during the look-back period. The question presented was whether two five point speeding tickets could properly constitute a “serious driving offense” justifying a denial of relicensing. The majority concluded the relevant regulation was a valid exercise of the Commissioner’s powers. The court noted that the Commissioner has the discretion to grant a license under unusual, extenuating and compelling circumstances, but petitioner did not make an application under that provision:

In the broadest sense, 15 NYCRR part 136 was promulgated to “establish[] criteria to identify individual problem drivers,” that is, applicants for new licenses that “ha[ve] had a series of convictions, incidents and/or accidents . . . which in the judgment of the [C]ommissioner . . . upon review of the applicant’s entire driving history, establishes that the person would be an unusual and immediate risk upon the highways” (15 NYCRR 136.1 [a], [b] [1]). In developing these regulations, the Commissioner considered empirical data, which indicated that drivers with three or more alcohol- or drug-related driving convictions are involved in a disproportionate number of motor vehicle accidents. Accordingly, the Commissioner rationally determined that such drivers “pose the highest risk to the general population” (NY Reg, Mar. 13, 2013 at 43) and, thus, should not be granted new, unrestricted licenses until after a waiting period of several years (see 15 NYCRR 136.5 [b] [3], [4]). With that in mind, we cannot consider the Commissioner’s decision to subject such recidivist impaired or intoxicated drivers to a longer — or even a presumptively permanent — ban on relicensure to be arbitrary when, like petitioner, such drivers may independently qualify as “problem drivers” because of the presence of speeding or other violations on their driving records (see 15 NYCRR 136.1 [b] [1]; 136.5 [a] [2]; [b] [2]).

As for petitioner’s claim that her two six-point speeding violations during the 25-year look-back period are not serious enough to be expressly defined as a “serious driving offense” (see 15 NYCRR [a] [2] [iii]), we defer to the Commissioner’s determination, as it was made pursuant to her discretionary authority (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 510 [5], [6]), and it was within the area of expertise of the agency she heads … . Matter of Matsen v New York State Dept. of Motor Vehs., 2015 NY Slip Op 09159, 3rd Dept 12-10-15

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (DRIVER’S LICENSES, COMMISSIONER HAS POWER TO DENY RELICENSING A DRIVER CONVICTED OF DWI BASED UPON TWO FIVE-POINT SPEEDING TICKETS)/DRIVER’S LICENSES (RELICENSING OF DRIVER CONVICTED OF DWI CAN BE DENIED BASED UPON TWO FIVE POINT SPEEDING TICKETS)/SPEEDING TICKETS (TWO FIVE POINT SPEEDS CONSTITUTE A SERIOUS DRIVING OFFENSE FOR WHICH RELICENSING CAN BE DENIED TO A DRIVER CONVICTED OF DWI)/RELICENSING OF DRIVERS CONVICTED OF DWI (CAN BE DENIED BASED UPON TWO FIVE POINT SPEEDING TICKETS)

/

PLAINTIFF, WHO SOLD GOODS TO NEW JERSEY COMPANIES FOR WHICH IT WAS NOT FULLY PAID, FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE NEW YORK JURISDICTION; FACTS PLED DID NOT DEMONSTRATE LONG-ARM JURISDICTION; SITUS OF THE INJURY WAS NEW JERSEY, NOT NEW YORK.

The First Department determined plaintiff did not demonstrate New York jurisdiction under the long arm statute (CPLR 302(a)(1) or under the statute imposing jurisdiction based on an out-of-state tort causing injury in New York (CPLR 302(a)(3)(ii)). Plaintiff allegedly sold goods to two New Jersey companies for which plaintiff was not fully paid.  The assets of the two New Jersey companies were allegedly sold to a European company. Plaintiff alleged the transfer to the European company was a fraudulent conveyance. In finding both jurisdictional arguments lacking, the court wrote:

… [T]he purchase and sale transaction, whereby this in-state plaintiff shipped goods to the out-of-state defendants, who then failed to fully pay for the goods, is “[t]he classic instance in which personal jurisdiction is found not to exist” … . Plaintiff has offered nothing but conclusory assertions to support long-arm jurisdiction under CPLR 302(a)(1). * * *

The court also properly rejected plaintiff’s assertion of jurisdiction under CPLR 302(a)(3)(ii), for an alleged tort committed without the state causing injury within the state. As to the tort committed without the state, plaintiff points to the alleged fraudulent conveyance …. This fails, however, because the “the situs of the injury is the location of the original event which caused the injury, not the location where the resultant damages are subsequently felt” … . Thus, this alleged tortious act did not cause injury within New York, but in New Jersey. Plaintiff has also offered nothing but conclusory allegations that any defendant “derives substantial revenue from interstate or international commerce,” as required for jurisdiction under CPLR 302(a)(3)(ii). Cotia (USA) Ltd. v Lynn Steel Corp., 2015 NY Slip Op 09169, 1st Dept 12-10-15

CIVIL PROCEDURE (LONG-ARM JURISDICTION NOT DEMONSTRATED, SALE OF GOODS TO COMPANIES IN NEW JERSEY)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (JURISDICTION BASED UPON SITUS OF THE INJURY NOT DEMONSTRATED)/JURISDICTION (LONG-ARM JURISDICTION AND JURISDICTION BASED UPON SITUS OF THE INJURY NOT DEMONSTRATED)/LONG-ARM JURISDICTION (SALE OF GOODS TO OUT-OF-STATE BUYER NOT SUFFICIENT)/SITUS OF INJURY JURISDICTION (SITUS OF INJURY FROM ALLEGED FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCE WAS NOT NEW YORK)

/

FAILURE TO INFORM DEFENDANT OF THE PERIOD OF POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION AT THE TIME OF THE PLEA RENDERED THE PLEA INVALID.

he Third Department reversed defendant’s conviction by guilty plea because the defendant was not informed of the period of postrelease supervision at the time of the plea. Defendant was told by the sentencing judge (at the time of the plea) if he violated interim probation (which was to lead to a felony probation) he would be sentenced to four years in prison. No mention was made of postrelease supervision. Defendant violated the terms of the interim probation and was sentenced to four years incarceration plus two years of postrelease supervision:

… [I]t is well settled that, for a defendant’s plea to be knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently entered into, a court must advise him or her of the direct consequences of a plea prior to sentencing, including the existence and duration of any postrelease supervision requirement … . Here, as the People concede, at the time of his plea, defendant was not properly made aware of the postrelease supervision component of his sentence. Accordingly, defendant’s decision to plead guilty was not a knowing, voluntary and intelligent one and, therefore, the judgment of conviction must be reversed … . People v Binion, 2015 NY Slip Op 09142, 3rd Dept 12-10-15

MONTHLY COMPILATION INDEX ENTRIES FOR THIS CASE:

CRIMINAL LAW (POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION, FAILURE TO INFORM DEFENDANT OF)/SENTENCING (POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION, FAILURE TO INFORM DEFENDANT OF)/POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION (FAILURE TO INFORM DEFENDANT OF)/PLEA (GUILTY PLEA INVOLUNTARY IF DEFENDANT NOT INFORMED OF POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION)

/ ,

DEFENDANT DID NOT ESTABLISH IT WAS AN OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD; MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT INCLUDED THE RIGHT TO INSPECT THE PROPERTY AND AN AGREEMENT TO INDEMNIFY TENANT FOR CLAIMS ARISING FROM TENANT’S NEGLIGENCE.

The First Department determined defendant did not demonstrate it was an out-of-possession landlord and defendant was therefore properly held liable for plaintiff’s slip and fall. Plaintiff worked for nonparty tenant Sunrise Senior Living Management, Inc. (SSLM) with which defendant had a property management agreement. Although the agreement required SSLM to maintain the facility, defendant had access to the facility for inspection and agreed to indemnify SSLM for claims arising from SSLM’s negligence:

Defendant failed to establish that it was an out-of-possession landowner with limited liability to third persons injured on the property … . Its management agreement with SSLM gave SSLM “complete and full control and discretion in the operation … of the Facility” and required SSLM to “maintain the Facility … in conformity with applicable Legal Requirements.” However, defendant had “access to the Facility at any and all reasonable times for the purpose of inspection,” had access to SSLM’s books and records, and was required to fund operating shortfalls, and SSLM was required to report to defendant regularly and to maintain bank accounts in approved financial institutions “as agent for [defendant].”

Significantly, the management agreement requires defendant to indemnify SSLM for claims arising out of SSLM’s own negligence in the performance of its duties. This agreement to indemnify is analogous to the procurement of insurance, which constitutes evidence of ownership and control … . It evidences defendant’s intent to be responsible for any accidents on the property. But for the fortuity of plaintiff’s being an employee who was barred from suing his employer, defendant would be responsible, through the indemnification provision, for his injuries. Waring v Sunrise Yonkers SL, LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 09174, 1st Dept 12-10-15

MONTHLY COMPILATION INDEX ENTRIES FOR THIS CASE:

NEGLIGENCE (DEFENDANT NOT AN OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD, PROPERLY HELD LIABLE FOR PLAINTIFF’S INJURIES)/LANDLORD-TENANT (DEFENDANT NOT AN OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD, PROPERLY HELD LIABLE FOR PLAINTIFF’S INJURIES)/OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD (DEFENDANT NOT AN OUT-OF POSSESSION LANDLORD, PROPERLY HELD LIABLE FOR PLAINTIFF’S INJURIES)

/

REQUEST FOR STATEMENTS MADE BY WITNESSES WHO DID NOT TESTIFY AT TRIAL (BECAUSE PETITIONER PLED GUILTY) SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED; NON-TESTIFYING WITNESS STATEMENTS ARE CONFIDENTIAL; REQUEST FOR GRAND JURY MINUTES SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED; ALTHOUGH THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS INVOLVED, PETITIONER DID NOT MAKE THE REQUISITE FACTUAL SHOWING OF A PARTICULARIZED NEED FOR DISCLOSURE.

The Second Department, over an extensive dissent, reversing Supreme Court, determined that petitioner’s request for disclosure of statements made by non-testifying witnesses and the grand jury minutes should not have been granted. In 1988 petitioner pled guilty to several sex offenses. Therefore, none of the witnesses who gave statements in connection the petitioner’s criminal case testified. The Second Department held the statements remained confidential. With respect to the grand jury minutes, the court noted that the public interest was involved, but was not enough to justify disclosure because petitioner did not make a factual showing of a particularized need for disclosure:

” [T]he statements of nontestifying witnesses are confidential and not disclosable under FOIL'” … . Thus, the documents sought by the petitioner, which contain statements of nontestifying witnesses, are not disclosable under FOIL.

Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the fact that he pleaded guilty and forfeited his right to a trial does not warrant a different conclusion. Under this Court’s jurisprudence, the statements of nontestifying witnesses are confidential, and that “cloak of confidentiality” is removed “once the statements have been used in open court” … . The entry of the petitioner’s plea of guilty did not remove the “cloak of confidentiality” from the statements of the nontestifying witnesses. Thus, those statements remain confidential and are not disclosable under FOIL. * * *

[A] “… party seeking disclosure [of grand jury minutes] will not satisfy the compelling and particularized need threshold simply by asserting, or even showing, that a public interest is involved.” Rather, “[t]he party must, by a factual presentation, demonstrate why, and to what extent, the party requires the minutes of a particular grand jury proceeding to advance the actions or measures taken, or proposed (e.g., legal action, administrative inquiry or legislative investigation), to insure that the public interest has been, or will be, served'” … . …

Despite the public interest involved in this case, the petitioner’s submissions did not establish a compelling and particularized need for disclosure of the grand jury materials … . The petitioner failed to demonstrate, by factual presentation, why, and to what extent, the grand jury materials are necessary to insure that the public interest will be served. In particular, the petitioner failed to sufficiently demonstrate how examination of the grand jury minutes and records will support his claim of actual innocence. Matter of Friedman v Rice, 2015 NY Slip Op 09103, 2nd Dept 12-9-15

MONTHLY COMPILATION INDEX ENTRIES FOR THIS CASE:

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW [FOIL] (STATEMENTS OF NON-TESTIFYING WITNESSES ARE CONFIDENTIAL)/FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW [FOIL] (GRAND JURY MINUTES, NO FACTUAL SHOWING OF PARTICULARIZED NEED FOR DISCLOSURE)/GRAND JURY MINUTES (FOIL REQUEST, NO FACTUAL SHOWING OF A PARTICULARIZED NEED FOR DISCLOSURE)

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