Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/104908806/Ows-harris-intervention-appellateterm
Timestamp: 2017-05-27 14:11:18
Document Index: 269414017

Matched Legal Cases: ['§1012', '§1013', '§1012', '§ 1001', '§1012', '§2701', '§1012', '§1013', '§1012', '§1013', 'art, 77', '§1014', 'art78', 'art78', '§ 2703', 'art78', '§ 2703']

Ows.harris.intervention.appellateterm | Intervention (Law) | Appeal
ScribdExploreEXPLORE BY INTERESTSCareer & MoneyBusiness Biography & HistoryEntrepreneurshipLeadership & MentoringMoney ManagementTime ManagementPersonal GrowthHappinessPsychologyRelationships & ParentingReligion & SpiritualitySelf-ImprovementPolitics & Current AffairsPoliticsSocietyScience & TechScienceTechHealth & FitnessFitnessNutritionSportsWellnessLifestyleArts & LanguagesFashion & BeautyFood & WineHome & GardenTravelEntertainmentCelebrity Biography & MemoirPop CultureBiographies & HistoryBiography & MemoirHistoryFictionChildren’s & YAClassic LiteratureContemporary FictionHistorical FictionLGBTQ FictionMystery, Thriller & CrimeRomanceScience Fiction & FantasyBROWSE BY CONTENT TYPEBooksAudiobooksNews & MagazinesSheet MusicUploadSign inJoinOptionsJoinSign InUploadOws.harris.intervention.appellatetermUploaded by Ben MeyersIntervention (Law)AppealCommon LawJudiciariesVirtue0.0 (0)DownloadEmbedView MoreCopyright: Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)Download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentSUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK APPELLATE TERM - FIRST DEPARTMENT - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x No.: ______________ THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK (NY County Clerk Docket No. 2011NY080152) - against Malcolm Harris, MOTION TO INTERVENE Defendant. -------------------------------------x SIRS/MADAMS: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that upon the affirmation of Martin R. Stolar and all of the proceedings heretofore had herein, the Defendant will move this Court on September 13, 2012 at 10:00 AM or as soon thereafter as counsel can be heard, for an Order, pursuant to CPLR §1012 and §1013, permitting the Defendant to intervene in these appellate proceedings as an appellant with Non-Party Appellant Twitter, Inc.,and for such other and further relief as may be just, proper and equitable. Dated: New York, NY September 4, 2012 Yours, etc. ____________________________ Martin R. Stolar 351 Broadway New York, NY 10013 212-219-1919 (fax) 212-941-0980 Mrslaw37@hotmail.com Emily M. Bass 551 Fifth Avenue, 28th Floor -1-
New York, NY 10176 646-810-3117 Emilybassesq@gmail.com Attorneys for Defendant-Intervenor Malcolm Harris To: Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., Esq. District Attorney, New York County By: Lee Langston, Esq Assistant District Attorney John K. Roche, Esq. Perkins, Coie Attorneys for Non-Party Appellant Twitter, Inc. 700 Thirteenth Street N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005-3960 202.434-1627 jroche@perkinscoie.com Aden Fine, Esq. Attorney for Proposed Amicus Curiae American Civil Liberties Union, Electronic Frontier Foundation and Public Citizen 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York NY 10004 212-549-2500 afine@aclu.org Clerk, Supreme Court of the State of New York Appellate Term - First Department
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK APPELLATE TERM - FIRST DEPARTMENT --------------------------------------x THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
No.: __________ (NY County Clerk Docket No. 2011NY080152)
- against AFFIRMATION IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO INTERVENE
Malcolm Harris, Defendant. -------------------------------------x
MARTIN R. STOLAR, an attorney duly admitted to practice in the Courts of the State of New York, pursuant to the CPLR, hereby affirms: 1. I am the attorney for the above-named defendant and submit this affirmation in support of his motion to intervene in these appellate proceedings brought by Non-Party Appellant Twitter, Inc. It is based upon a review of the Court files and records as well as my personal knowledge of the proceedings in this case in the Criminal Court of the City of New York, County of New York. 2. This appeal arises out of efforts by the NY County District Attorney to
subpoena electronic communications, IP addresses, and other personal informationrelating to my client, the defendant Malcolm Harris, from Twitter, Inc. for use at his trial of the disorderly conduct charge pending against him in the New York County Criminal Court. (Trial of that charge is now scheduled to commence on December 12, 2012.) 3. Twitter, Inc., a non-party to the criminal litigation, moved to quash the District Attorney’s subpoenas in the Criminal Court and that motion was denied. The denial of the motion is the subject of this appeal with Twitter asserting that my client, Mr. Harris, has standing to move to quash the subpoenas in his own right because they violate Mr. Harris’ constitutional and statutory rights. It is this appeal in which Mr. Harris seeks to intervene. 4. Mr. Harris also moved unsuccessfully in the Criminal Court to quash the subpoenas that are the subject of this appeal. In the case of my client’s motions, the Criminal Court did not even reach the merits. Rather, it held that Mr. Harris lacked standing to object to the subpoenas on any grounds. The Criminal Court’s denial of the motion to quash is now the subject of an Article 78 proceeding in the nature of mandamus and prohibition pending in the New York County Supreme Court and scheduled to be heard there on September 28, 2012. (Harris v. Sciarrino, et al., NY County Index Number 12103569). 5. Because the electronic communications, IP addresses, and other noncontent information the Criminal Court has ordered Twitter to turn over implicate Mr. Harris privacy rights and rights of speech and association under the United States and New York Constitutions, Mr. Harris has both a real and a substantial interest in the -4-
outcome of this appeal. While Twitter is to be lauded for having stepped forward to oppose the government’s demands when my client was denied the opportunity to do so, Twitter does not have interests comparable to those of my client. Twitter’s privacy and First and Fourth Amendment rights are not at stake here. 6. Fortunately, the CPLR provides a mechanism for Mr. Harris to make his position on this appeal known. He can intervene pursuant to CPLR §§1012 and 1013, and the Court’s inherent powers, and/or be added by the Court as a party pursuant to CPLR §§ 1001 and 1003. 7. CPLR §1012 provides for mandatory “intervention as of right” where one of three standards are met: a) where a statute provides such a right. This is inapplicable in this case. b) where representation of the proposed intervenor’s interests are or may be inadequate and the person is or may be bound by the judgement; and c) where the action “involves the distribution or disposition of, or the title ... to, property of the person and the person may be affected adversely by the judgement.” The conditions described in subparagraphs b) and c) are met in this case. 8. Twitter is inadequate to represent Harris’ interests, as a matter of law, for three independent reasons: (1) Twitter cannot satisfy the well-established criteria for “representational standing” and therefore cannot represent Harris’ First Amendment interests. See, generally, Hunt v. Washington State Apple Commission, 432 U.S. 333 (1977). -5-
(2) Twitter, alone, cannot represent Harris’ privacy interests under New York Times v. City of New York Fire Department, 3 A.D. 3d 340 (1st Dept. 2004, aff’d. 4 N.Y. 3d 477 (2005) (a proceeding under Article 78 of the CPLR). (3) Twitter cannot adequately represent its users’ privacy interests because it has been placed in an impossible - indeed, conflicted -position by the Stored Communications Act, 18 U.S.C. §2701, et seq. Section 2703(g) of that Act routinely requires Twitter to serve as the government’s agent in executing search warrants and disclosure orders for information related to its subscribers accounts. It is now being also asked to serve the subscribers’ interests when they are the object or target of a subpoena, warrant, or disclosure order. 9. Intervention is also mandated under CPLR §1012(a)(3) because the action implicates Harris’ “title” to property. Specifically, the criminal court ruled, contrary to law and fact, that Twitter owns “tweets”, call-identifying information, and location data that, as a matter of law, belong to Harris. (See, e.g. the arguments advanced at pp.21, et seq. of the attached Exhibit, Harris’ Memorandum of Law in connection with his Article 78 proceeding.) Mr.Harris’ property interests will obviously be adversely affected unless these legally erroneous acknowledged. 10.. CPLR §1013 provides for “permissive intervention” “when the person’s claim or defense and the main action have a common question of law or fact.” This discretionary intervention is governed by considerations of any undue delay caused by the intervention -6rulings are vacated and Mr. Harris’ rightful ownership
or any prejudice to the substantial right of any party. a) The common questions of law or fact are clear: whether the District Attorney’s subpoena is proper under constitutional and statutory limitations and whether Mr. Harris has standing to litigate these questions. The standing question is a major one brought by this appeal and is the subject of Mr. Harris’ Article 78 proceeding concerning the denial of his standing to challenge the subpoena in his own right. b) No undue delay will result fromgranting Mr. Harris the right to intervene as he is prepared to submit a brief shortly after this motion is granted. Because the question of Mr. Harris’ standing to raise challenges to the subpoena has already been briefed for the Article 78 proceeding as well as for this appeal, the District Attorney, who is a party to both proceedings, is relieved from any onerous burden in preparing opposition papers to intervenor’s Brief because the questions presented are the same. Further, the District Attorney-Respondent in this appeal will suffer no substantial prejudice from Mr. Harris’ intervention because there are no additional responsibilities which fall on his office as the result of the granting of this motion. 11. Since the 1950's, the tests for intervention as of right and permissive intervention have converged. Now, whether intervention is sought as a matter of right under CPLR §1012 or as a matter of discretion under CPLR §1013 is deemed one of little practical significance. See, e.g., Yuppie Puppy Prods v. Street Smart, 77 A.D. 3d 197, 201 (1st Dept. 2010) (“distinctions between intervention as of right and discretionary intervention are no longer sharply applied.”) Rather, the view is that “where the intervenor -7-
has a real and substantial interest in the outcome of the proceeding, intervention should be allowed”. Plantech Housing Inc. V. Conlan, 74 A.D.2d 920, 921 (2d Dept. 1980, appeal dism’d. 51 N.Y.2d 862 (1980). Accord, Golbal Team Vernon v.Vernon RealtyHolding, 93 A.D. 3d 819. 820 (2d Dept. 2012); Yuppie Puppy Prods v. Street Smart, supra; Berkoski v. Board of Trustees, 67 A.D.2d 840, 843 (2d Dept 2009); Robert v. Watkins 52 A.D.2d 1000 (3d Dept 2008); Agostino v. Soufer, 284 A.D. 2d 147, 148 (1st Dept. 2001); Hope v. Perales, 189 A.D. 2d 187 (1st Dept 1993). 12. Mr. Harris clearly meets this test. He has a clear and substantial interest because it is his communications, his associations and beliefs, and his movements over time that will be disclosed if the lower court’s orders are upheld. 13. Whether it does so as a matter of right or discretion, this Court should grant the application to intervene. To hold otherwise would seem a logical fallacy: it is Mr. Harris personal information and communications which the District Attorney seeks to obtain in order to enhance its prosecution of him. He is both the subject of the information sought and the object of its potential use in his capacity as a defendant in the underlying criminal case. To deny him the ability to make his voice known would treat him as a nonentity in a case which affects his substantial rights. The motion should be granted. 14. Under CPLR§1014, this motion should be accompanied by a proposed pleading, in this case a brief on appeal. Attached to this affirmation is the Memorandum of Law submitted in connection with the Article 78 proceeding. It has substantially all of the legal arguments which Mr. Harris would make on this appeal and would only have to -8-
be re-cast in the form of an appellate brief rather than a memorandum in support of an Article 78 proceeding. 15. Two further notes: first, intervention in the proceedings below was sought and denied by the Criminal Court; second, Appellant Twitter has agreed to and is supportive of this application. The position of the respondent District Attorney is unknown -- they have been asked to consent, oppose, or take no position on the question and no answer has been forthcoming. WHEREFORE, your affirmant requests that this motion to intervene be granted and that a schedule be set for the submission of Mr Harris’ Brief on appeal in time for consideration in the November term of this Court. Dated: New York, NY September 4, 2012 _____________________________ MARTIN R. STOLAR
Documents Similar To Ows.harris.intervention.appellatetermSkip carouselExh. 12 Affirmation in Support of People's Response to Defendant's Motion to ReargueExh. 6 Reply Affirmation MTQBrief Harris AppellatetermExh. 14 Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Third-Party Twitter Inc's MTQOWS.harris.art78.PetitionExh. 10 Decision and Order [April 20, 2012]OWS.harris.art78memoExh. 17 Decision and Order [June 30, 2012]Exh. 5 Affirmation in Support of People's Response to Defendant's MTQExh. 16 Affirmation in Support of Non-Party Twitter Inc's Motion to Quash Subpoenas and § 2703(d) OrderOws Harris Aclu Amicus App TermExh. 7 Motion to InterveneExh. 4 Notice of Motion to QuashExh. 11 Notice of Motion to ReargueExh. 9 Motion to Quash and to InterveneExh. 15 Motion to QuashExh. 8 Perkins Coie CorrespondenceOffice of the Ombudsman v SisonBrumfield v. Louisiana State Board of Education - Court OrderFPJ vs GMAIn Re Application of the New York Times Company and Dow Jones & Company, Inc., Applicants-Appellants. United States of America v. James Sutton Regan, 878 F.2d 67, 2d Cir. (1989)1ASSOC . HART wNoticeNoticeNoticeNoticeNoticeNoticeNoticeDocuments About Intervention (Law)Skip carouselCaraway Motion to Quash Deposition1:12-cv-00589 #127CoinbaseTexas v Davis Petition for a Writ of CertiorariJackson New Media waives rebuttal in State Farm vs. Jim Hood caseTaitz v MDEC - ECF 89 - 2012-12-20 - MDEC Opp to Grinols Motion to IntervenemspbCostco motion to intervene in contact lens lawsuitEDVA Ruling in Favor of Redistricting Plan 16 (Jan. 2016)4/26/16 Unsealing Order in Hulk Hogan's lawsuit against Gawker4/8/16 Hulk Hogan opposition to unsealing records & cross motion to clarify grounds (Includes exhibit) OCRUtah Association v. Clinton, 255 F.3d 1246, 10th Cir. (2001)Martinez v. Heyer-Schulte, Inc., 10th Cir. (1998)Teacher Data Report Decision3:09-cv-02292 #27009-16959 #481:09-cv-11156 #122:12-cv-00887 #37A.M. v. a.C. and N.M. and Colorado3:13-cv-05038 #571:13-cv-01861 #93slm26:13-cv-01834 #8714-35427 #311:13-cv-01861 #14112-17668 #245Intervenors Brief in Support of Motion to Unseal Documents 9-11-143:14-cv-01253 #464:14-cv-00622 #383:14-cv-00213 #108More From Ben MeyersSkip carouselVFP 1st Amend BriefVFP International Law memoOws Harris Aclu Amicus App TermOws Harris Twitter App Term BriefOWS.harris.art78memoExh. 17 Decision and Order [June 30, 2012]Exh. 16 Affirmation in Support of Non-Party Twitter Inc's Motion to Quash Subpoenas and § 2703(d) OrderExh. 15 Motion to QuashExh. 13 Decision and Order [May 4, 2012]Exh. 11 Notice of Motion to ReargueExh. 10 Decision and Order [April 20, 2012]Exh. 9 Motion to Quash and to InterveneExh. 8 Perkins Coie CorrespondenceExh. 7 Motion to InterveneExh. 5 Affirmation in Support of People's Response to Defendant's MTQExh. 4 Notice of Motion to QuashExh. 3 Subpoena Duces TecumExh. 2 Supporting DepositionExh. 1 Violation