Court Opinion

ID: 9930972
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-07 21:09:17.905277+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:09:32.661564
License: Public Domain

Gonen v New York City Police Dept.
               2024 NY Slip Op 30371(U)
                    January 31, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 159794/2023
                  Judge: Arlene P. Bluth
Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip
 Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York
 State and local government sources, including the New
  York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service.
 This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official
                       publication.
                                                                                                                      INDEX NO. 159794/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 33                                                                                            RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/31/2024

                                   SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
                                             NEW YORK COUNTY
            PRESENT:             HON. ARLENE P. BLUTH                                             PART                              14
                                                                                      Justice
            ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X    INDEX NO.          159794/2023
             YOAV GONEN, THE CITY REPORT, INC.
                                                                                                  MOTION DATE         01/30/2024
                                                         Petitioners,
                                                                                                  MOTION SEQ. NO.      001 002
                                                 -v-
             NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT,                                                       DECISION + ORDER ON
                                                                                                          MOTION
                                                         Respondent.
            ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X

            The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 1- 12, 13, 14, 15, 16,
            17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 30
            were read on this motion to/for                                                      ARTICLE 78 FOIL                    .

            The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 002) 25, 26, 27, 28, 29
            were read on this motion to/for                                                       CONFERENCE                        .

                      Motion Sequence Numbers 001 and 002 are consolidated for disposition. Respondent’s

            cross-motion (MS001) to dismiss the petition, which seeks records pursuant to a Freedom of

            Information Law (“FOIL”) request, is denied. Petitioners’ motion (MS002) for a status

            conference is denied.

            Background

                      This special proceeding concerns a FOIL request for a specific Internal Affairs Bureau

            (“IAB”) file (NYSCEF Doc. No. 2). Petitioners observe that this IAB file relates to an incident

            involving a retired police officer. They contend that this retired officer brandished a weapon at

            three boys and, after he was subsequently arrested, a police chief voided that arrest. Petitioners

            allege that IAB found that no misconduct was committed by this police chief but the Civilian

            Complaint Review Board (“CCRB”) conducted its own investigation and recommended that the

             159794/2023 GONEN, YOAV ET AL vs. NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT                                        Page 1 of 6
             Motion No. 001 002

                                                                           1 of 6
[* 1]
                                                                                                     INDEX NO. 159794/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 33                                                                         RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/31/2024

            police chief get docked up to 10 vacation days. Petitioners insist that the then-police

            commissioner upheld this penalty and the police chief is currently challenging this determination

            in an administrative trial.

                     Petitioners observe that in 2023, the Brooklyn District Attorney’s Office released

            numerous videos about the arrest of the former officer and the voiding of the arrest a few hours

            later.

                     Respondent denied petitioners’ FOIL request “on the basis of Public Officers Law

            Section 87(2)(b) as such information, if disclosed, would constitute an unwarranted invasion of

            personal privacy” (NYSCEF Doc. No. 4). Respondent then denied petitioners’ appeal and noted

            that “the records responsive to your request are specifically exempted by state or federal statute

            [§87(2)(a)] in that they have been SEALED pursuant to New York Criminal Procedure Law

            §160.50” (NYSCEF Doc. No. 6). Respondent also insisted that all associated records are exempt

            from disclosure and releasing these records would interfere with a law enforcement investigation

            (the internal investigation) (id.).

                     Respondent cross-moves to dismiss the petition. It acknowledges that it found a

            responsive record—the entire investigation file, which consists of a four-page report and two

            attachments. The first attachment is an eight-minute, forty-four second audio recording and the

            second is a two-page 911 report. It claims that these records are barred from release because

            they are sealed under CPL 160.50 and due to privacy concerns.

                     Respondent argues that the specific IAB case number requested by petitioners concerns

            the investigation into the former police officer and so all of the details relate to an arrest that has

            now been sealed. It insists that contrary to petitioners’ arguments, this IAB file does not relate to

            the allege misconduct of the police chief.

             159794/2023 GONEN, YOAV ET AL vs. NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT                        Page 2 of 6
             Motion No. 001 002

                                                            2 of 6
[* 2]
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 159794/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 33                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/31/2024

                   In reply, petitioners argue that CPLR 160.50 does not apply in FOIL proceedings and is

            only relevant to a criminal action or proceeding. They argue it has no relevance in a disciplinary

            action involving a police officer. Petitioners blame respondent for not seeking clarification about

            the scope of the request or notifying petitioners about its concerns.

            Discussion

                   “To promote open government and public accountability, FOIL imposes a broad duty on

            government agencies to make their records available to the public. The statute is based on the

            policy that the public is vested with an inherent right to know and that official secrecy is

            anathematic to our form of government. Consistent with the legislative declaration in Public

            Officers Law § 84, FOIL is liberally construed and its statutory exemptions narrowly interpreted.

            All records are presumptively available for public inspection and copying, unless the agency

            satisfies its burden of demonstrating that the material requested falls squarely within the ambit of

            one of the statutory exemptions. While FOIL exemptions are to be narrowly read, they must of

            course be given their natural and obvious meaning where such interpretation is consistent with

            the legislative intent and with the general purpose and manifest policy underlying FOIL” (Abdur-

            Rashid v New York City Police Dept., 31 NY3d 217, 224-25, 76 NYS3d 460 [2018] [internal

            quotations and citation omitted]).

                   The Court’s central focus in this opinion is the interaction between CPL 160.50 and

            FOIL. Respondent argues in support of its cross-motion to dismiss that this criminal statute—

            which provides that certain records are sealed upon the termination of a criminal action in favor

            of the accused—justifies its denial of the FOIL request. However, respondent did not cite a

            single case that holds that CPL 160.50 can be used to shield an entire IAB file from a FOIL

            request. There is no question that the IAB file in question relates to the voided arrest of a former

             159794/2023 GONEN, YOAV ET AL vs. NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT                     Page 3 of 6
             Motion No. 001 002

                                                          3 of 6
[* 3]
                                                                                                     INDEX NO. 159794/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 33                                                                         RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/31/2024

            officer, but respondent did not meet its burden on a motion to dismiss to demonstrate that the

            reach of this statute applies to a file created for an internal investigation within the police

            department.

                    “In sealing the records of a prosecution that terminated in favor of the accused, the instant

            statute serves the laudable goal of insuring that one who is charged but not convicted of an

            offense suffers no stigma as a result of his having once been the object of an unsustained

            accusation” (William C. Donnino, Prac Commentaries, CPL 160.50). “CPL 160.50 does not

            define what constitutes an official record relating to an arrest or prosecution, and the Court of

            Appeals has held that bright line rules are not wholly appropriate in this area” (New York Times

            Co. v Dist. Attorney of Kings County, 179 AD3d 115, 123, 111 NYS3d 691 [2d Dept 2019]

            [finding that the Kings County District Attorney’s Office Conviction Review Unit’s reports

            relating to the arrest and prosecution of individuals whose convictions were later vacated were

            shielded from FOIL under CPL 160.50]). “Indeed, such records and papers are not always

            subject to easy identification and may vary according to the circumstances of a particular case”

            (Matter of Harper v Angiolillo, 89 NY2d 761, 766, 658 NYS2d 229 [1997]).

                    Here, petitioners do not seek arrest records or files, they seek an IAB file. The fact is that

            respondent decided that the circumstances at issue here merited an internal investigation and the

            IAB file, on its face, relates primarily to that investigation, not to the arrest or prosecution of the

            former officer. That compels the Court to deny the cross-motion on this basis as respondent did

            not meet its burden on a cross-motion to dismiss.

                    Respondent’s next objection is that turning over these records would constitute an

            unwarranted invasion of privacy under Public Officers Law §§ 87(2)(b) and 89(2)(B). It points

            out that information in the file contains witnesses’ names, home addresses, dates of birth and cell

             159794/2023 GONEN, YOAV ET AL vs. NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT                        Page 4 of 6
             Motion No. 001 002

                                                            4 of 6
[* 4]
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 159794/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 33                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/31/2024

            phone numbers as well as this same information for the former officer who was arrested.

            Petitioners explain in reply that they “consent to the redaction of witnesses’ names, home

            addresses, dates of birth, and cell phone numbers and to redactions to similar information

            concerning the sealed arrestee.” In this Court’s view, utilizing redactions satisfies any concerns

            about privacy (New York Civ. Liberties Union v New York City Dept. of Correction, 213 AD3d

            530, 531 [1st Dept 2023], lv to appeal denied, 2024 NY Slip Op 60397 [2024] [noting that using

            redactions can prevent the unwarranted invasion of personal privacy]). Accordingly, this is also

            not a basis to grant a cross-motion to dismiss.

            MS002

                    The Court denies petitioners’ request for a “status conference.” As an initial matter, the

            notice of motion did not cite a CPLR section upon which this relief is based (see CPLR 2214[a]

            [requiring that a notice of motion state the grounds for relief]). And this is a special proceeding,

            which means that discovery is generally not permitted (see CPLR 408). Petitioners’ claim that

            they want to “address the scope of the FOIL request” is not a proper demand in a special

            proceeding. This Court’s role in a FOIL proceeding is to evaluate the respondent’s

            determination concerning the request at issue, not to explore petitioners’ possible request for

            additional records. As respondent correctly pointed out in opposition to this motion, to the

            extent that petitioners demand records outside the scope of the subject FOIL request, they must

            file a new request.

            Summary

                    The reach of the Court’s decision is limited. The Court merely finds that respondent did

            satisfy its burden on a cross-motion to dismiss and must answer. Respondent’s cited

            justifications for not turning over the records in question do not compel the Court to dismiss the

             159794/2023 GONEN, YOAV ET AL vs. NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT                     Page 5 of 6
             Motion No. 001 002

                                                           5 of 6
[* 5]
                                                                                                       INDEX NO. 159794/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 33                                                                             RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/31/2024

            proceeding at this stage. Its citation to a criminal procedure law provision about sealing arrest

            records was not accompanied by any case law that shows it applies to IAB files. And the issue

            of personal privacy is easily addressed with redactions.

                    Respondent is directed to answer on or before February 29, 2024 and petitioners shall

            reply, if desired, on or before March 12, 2024. The Court sets a new return date for this MS001

            (as respondent only filed a cross-motion, not a separate motion) for March 13, 2024.

                    Accordingly, it is hereby

                    ORDERED that respondent’s cross-motion to dismiss is denied and it shall answer on or

            before February 29, 2024; and it is further

                    ORDERED that petitioners shall reply, if they wish, on or before March 12, 2024 and the

            new return date for MS001 shall be March 13, 2024; and it is further

                    ORDERED that petitioners’ motion (MS002) for a status conference is denied.

                    1/31/2024                                                            $SIG$
                      DATE                                                       ARLENE P. BLUTH, J.S.C.
             CHECK ONE:                 CASE DISPOSED                X   NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

                                                                                                     □
                                        GRANTED             DENIED       GRANTED IN PART              X     OTHER

             APPLICATION:               SETTLE ORDER                     SUBMIT ORDER

                                                                                                     □
             CHECK IF APPROPRIATE:      INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN       FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT              REFERENCE

             159794/2023 GONEN, YOAV ET AL vs. NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT                            Page 6 of 6
             Motion No. 001 002

                                                          6 of 6
[* 6]