State Court of Appeals Declines to Hear Police Officer Record Shield Suit
The suit was one of a number making their way towards the state's high court seeking to challenge what advocates say is an unjustified expansion of a law shielding law enforcement officials' records.
December 19, 2017 at 01:55 PM
4 minute read
The state's highest court denied a motion for leave to appeal Tuesday in a suit challenging what police reform advocates say is an inappropriate expansion of laws shielding disclosure of materials related to police officers' conduct.
The Court of Appeals gave no indication of why it declined to take the case, simply noting in a routine listing of dispositions that it was denying the motion.
The suit is among those moving toward the high court regarding the section of the state's civil rights law known as 50-a. Under it, law enforcement agencies are able to shield from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act records deemed to relate to law enforcement officials' “personnel records.” Advocates argue that, historically, the law was invoked in limited circumstances when the information was related to the evaluation of an individual's performance in an employment or promotion context, per the letter of the law.
But, they say, over time, the provision has been stretched. Now, it's being used to attempt to block handing over a video showing an altercation between an inmate and a correction officer, or, in the case of Legal Aid Society, the civilian complaint records against New York City Police Department Officer Daniel Pantaleo.
Pantaleo was seen on video applying what appeared to be a chokehold to Eric Garner on July 17, 2014. Garner can be heard on the video saying he couldn't breathe 11 times. He was pronounced dead at a local hospital. The New York City Medical Examiner's Office ruled Garner's death a homicide as a result of, among other things, “compression of neck (chokehold).”
Advocates argue that summary complaint records requested from the city's Civilian Complaint Review Board were “routinely provided” in the past, before denying the Legal Aid Society's request for Pantaleo's records in 2014. The decision, advocates argue, is part of the ongoing expansion of 50-a invocations, especially under New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio's administration.
For their part, the mayor and the NYPD claim they are simply following the law as it was written—a law they've publicly stated they'd like to see changed to be able to release records.
While the New York County Supreme Court agreed with the legal defense organization, an Appellate Division, First Department, panel reversed the lower court's decision, finding that written decisions rendered by the NYPD in disciplinary cases are protected from disclosure. The high court's decision Tuesday leaves that interpretation in place.
Legal observers are unsurprised, in large part because Pantaleo's records were ultimately publicly leaked. Additionally, some observers felt there was a narrowness to the issue and questions about the law's applicability—specifically, whether 50-a even covered the CCRB—that made success seem unlikely.
“This decision is regrettable but not a surprise given the leak of Officer Daniel Pantaleo's CCRB history earlier this year,” Cynthia Conti-Cook, a Legal Aid staff attorney with the criminal special litigation unit, said in a statement. “We have several other strong 50-a cases percolating and we do believe that the Court of Appeals, in one case or another, will rule clarifying the city's overly broad interpretation of the law.”
In a statement, CCRB acting chair Fred Davie reiterated the city's position that state lawmakers needed to act on reform of the disclosure laws.
“The CCRB has had a long-standing belief in the need to reform Civil Rights Law 50-a,” Davie said. “This law makes it harder for communities to see when an officer has faced discipline for misconduct and only serves as a barrier to restoring public trust in policing.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllOrrick Hires Longtime Weil Partner as New Head of Antitrust Litigation
Ephemeral Messaging Going Into 2025:The Messages May Vanish But Not The Preservation Obligations
5 minute readSEC Official Hints at More Restraint With Industry Bars, Less With Wells Meetings
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Litigators of the Week: A $630M Antitrust Settlement for Automotive Software Vendors—$140M More Than Alleged Overcharges
- 2Litigator of the Week Runners-Up and Shout-Outs
- 3Linklaters Hires Four Partners From Patterson Belknap
- 4Law Firms Expand Scope of Immigration Expertise, Amid Blitz of Trump Orders
- 5Latest Boutique Combination in Florida Continues Am Law 200 Merger Activity
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250