Opinion ID: 422035
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Barry Appeal

Text: 51 The Barry plaintiffs challenge only the public inspection provisions of LL 48. For the most part, their arguments parallel those of the Slevin plaintiffs, and the Barry plaintiffs incorporate by reference the arguments presented by the Slevin plaintiffs. The principal difference between the two groups of plaintiffs, for purposes of this appeal, is the different opportunities for corruption and conflicts of interest available to each group. Unlike the Fire Department, the Police Department has a history of pervasive corruption. Slevin v. City of New York, supra, 551 F.Supp. at 933 n. 12. Moreover, the district court found that corruption in the Department ... has markedly diminished, but it persists. Id. Thus, the City's justification for seeking financial disclosure from the Barry plaintiffs and for permitting public inspection of their reports is stronger than in the case of the Slevin plaintiffs. Accordingly, our decision of the Slevin appeal controls the disposition of the Barry appeal.