CLIVE LINO plf-ap, v. THE CITY OF NEW YORK def-res

7799. CLIVE LINO plf-ap, v. THE CITY OF NEW YORK def-res — THE COMMUNITY SERVICE SOCIETY OF NEW YORK,THE BRONX DEFENDERS, THE CENTER FOR COMMUNITY ALTERNATIVES, THE LEGAL ACTION CENTER, THE LEGAL AID SOCIETY, MFY LEGAL SERVICES, YOUTH REPRESENT, THE NEW YORK COUNTY LAWYERS' ASSOCIATION, AND THE FORTUNE SOCIETY, AMICI CURIAE. New York Civil Liberties Union Foundation, New York (Christopher Dunn of counsel), for ap — Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Mordecai Newman of counsel), for res — COMMUNITY SERVICE SOCIETY OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK (JUDITH M. WHITING OF COUNSEL), FOR AMICI CURIAE.—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara Jaffe, J.), entered June 28, 2011, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendants' cross motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the cross motion denied.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

7799. CLIVE LINO plf-ap, v. THE CITY OF NEW YORK def-res — THE COMMUNITY SERVICE SOCIETY OF NEW YORK,THE BRONX DEFENDERS, THE CENTER FOR COMMUNITY ALTERNATIVES, THE LEGAL ACTION CENTER, THE LEGAL AID SOCIETY, MFY LEGAL SERVICES, YOUTH REPRESENT, THE NEW YORK COUNTY LAWYERS’ ASSOCIATION, AND THE FORTUNE SOCIETY, AMICI CURIAE. New York Civil Liberties Union Foundation, New York (Christopher Dunn of counsel), for ap — Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Mordecai Newman of counsel), for res — COMMUNITY SERVICE SOCIETY OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK (JUDITH M. WHITING OF COUNSEL), FOR AMICI CURIAE.—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara Jaffe, J.), entered June 28, 2011, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendants’ cross motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the cross motion denied.

In this class action proceeding brought pursuant to article 9 of the CPLR, plaintiffs challenge the inclusion of their police records in the New York Police Department’s (NYPD) “stop and frisk” database. Plaintiffs are a proposed class of 360,000 people who were stopped and frisked by NYPD officers and whose records are required to be sealed pursuant to CPL sections 160.50 and 160.55, which mandate sealing upon favorable dispositions and convictions for noncriminal offenses. The class allegations, however, are not subjects of this appeal.

CLIVE LINO plf-ap, v. THE CITY OF NEW YORK def-res

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal