Case Name: In the Matter of Jerald Miller, Respondent, v. New York State Division of Human Rights, Appellant, et al., Respondents
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2015-06-17
Citations: 129 A.D.3d 973
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of Jerald Miller, Respondent, v New York State Division of Human Rights, Appellant, et al., Respondents.
Judges: Dillon, J.P., Dickerson, Roman and LaSalle, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 129
Pages: 973–974

Head Matter:
In the Matter of Jerald Miller, Respondent, v New York State Division of Human Rights, Appellant, et al., Respondents.
[10 NYS3d 458]

Opinion:
In a proceeding, inter alia, pursuant to Executive Law § 298 to review a determination of the New York State Division of Human Rights dated March 19, 2012, dismissing the petitioner's administrative complaint, the New York State Division of Human Rights appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lewis, J.), dated January 13, 2014, which, in effect, denied that branch of its motion which was to quash so much of a subpoena duces tecum as demanded the production of its General Counsel's Legal Opinion Nos. 1976-28, 2009-08, 2001-26, and 1997-06 and, upon in camera review of the subject documents, directed their production in redacted form.
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law and in the exercise of discretion, without costs or disbursements, and that branch of the motion of the New York State Division of Human Rights which was to quash so much of a subpoena duces tecum as demanded the production of its General Counsel's Legal Opinion Nos. 1976-28, 2009-08, 2001-26, and 1997-06 is granted.
"Judicial review of administrative determinations is confined to the facts and record adduced before the agency" (Matter of Yarbough v Franco, 95 NY2d 342, 347 [2000] [citation and internal quotation marks omitted]), and disclosure is permitted only by leave of court (see CPLR 408). Here, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in allowing the disclosure of the subject documents, as there is nothing in the administra tive record to indicate that the agency relied on them in making the determination under review.
Dillon, J.P., Dickerson, Roman and LaSalle, JJ., concur.