Court of Appeals of the State of New York

To be argued by: Christopher Dunn

15 minutes

Court of Appeals of the

State of New York

______________________________

NEW YORK CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, ? v. ?

Appellant,

NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, ______________________________

Respondent.

ON APPEAL FROM THE APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT APL #2017-00184

BRIEF OF APPELLANT NEW YORK CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION

Dated: October 26, 2017 New York, N.Y.

CHRISTOPHER DUNN ROBERT HODGSON ARTHUR EISENBERG New York Civil Liberties Union Foundation 125 Broad Street, 19th Floor New York, NY 10004 (212) 607-3300 (212) 607-3318 (fax)

Attorneys for Appellant

On the brief: Scout Katovich

DISCLOSURE STATEMENT The Appellant New York Civil Liberties Union is incorporated in New York as a not-for-profit entity. It has no corporate parents, subsidiaries, or affiliates, but it does function as the New York affiliate of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ....................................................................................iv

QUESTION PRESENTED ........................................................................................1

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION..........................................................................1

INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................2

STATEMENT OF FACTS ........................................................................................4

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS ..........................................................7

LOWER COURT PROCEEDINGS................................................................9

THE FIRST DEPARTMENT DECISION....................................................12

ARGUMENT ...........................................................................................................14

I. AN OVERVIEW OF THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW AND SECTION 50-A ...............................................................14

II. DECADES OF RULINGS FROM THIS COURT ESTABLISH THAT REDACTION IS AVAILABLE TO BALANCE THE TRANSPARENCY GOALS OF THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW AND THE PRIVACY INTERESTS OF SECTION 50-A.............................................................................16

A. This Court Has Expressly Endorsed Redaction as a Tool to Balance FOIL's Transparency Goal Against Section 50-a's Privacy Interests and Has Held that Section 50-a Must Be Read Narrowly in the Context of FOIL Disputes....................18

B. This Court's Endorsement of Redaction in Daily Gazette Is Consistent with Nearly Forty Years of Rulings from this Court Endorsing Redaction as a Tool in FOIL Disputes ...........................23

ii

C. This Court's Endorsement of Redaction in Daily Gazette Is Also Consistent with Rulings from the United States Supreme Court and State Courts that Have Confronted Similar Controversies .....................................................26

III. THIS COURT SHOULD ORDER PRODUCTION OF THE NYPD TRIAL ROOM DECISIONS WITH IDENTIFYING DETAILS OF SUBJECT OFFICERS REDACTED........................................................................................29 A. Daily Gazette and this Court's Many Other FOIL Rulings Compel the Conclusion that the NYPD Trial Room Decisions Must Be Produced with Identifying Details Redacted to Protect Officer Privacy ..............................................................29 B. The Appellate Division Erred When It Disregarded Daily Gazette and Read Two Other Cases from this Court to Bar Redaction in FOIL Cases Involving Section 50-a..............................35

CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................40

iii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases Capital Newspapers Division of the Hearst Corporation v

Burns 67 NY2d 562 [1986] ....................................................................passim City of Baton Rouge/Parish of East Baton Rouge v Capital City

Press, L.L.C., 4 So3d 807 [La Ct App 2008] ................................................28 Cowles Publ. Co. v State Patrol, 109 Wash2d 712 [Wash 1988] ...........................28 Daily Gazette Company v City of Schenectady

93 NY2d 145 [1999]...............................................................................passim Data Tree LLC v Romaine, 9 NY3d 454 [2007]..........................................24, 37, 38 Department of the Air Force v Rose, 425 US 352 [1976] .................................26, 27 Gallogly v City of New York, 51 Misc 3d 296

[Sup Ct NY County 2016] .............................................................................16 Matter of Gannett Co. v James, 86 AD2d 744,

lv denied 56 NY2d 502 [1982] ......................................................................22 Gould v New York City Police Department, 89 NY2d 267 [1996] .............24, 37, 38 Karlin v McMahon 96 NY2d 842 [2001] .........................................................passim Ligon v City of New York, 925 F Supp 2d 478 [SD NY 2013]..................................7 Lino v City of New York, 101 AD3d 552 [1st Dept 2012].........................................7 New York Civil Liberties Union v New York City Police Department,

102436/12 [Sup Ct, NY County Oct. 9, 2012] ........................................10, 11 148 AD3d 642 [1st Dept 2017] ...................................................12, 13, 14, 35

iv

 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download