Howell v. New York City Human Resources Administration

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Howell v. New York City Human Resources Administration

97 A.D.2d 352, 467 N.Y.S.2d 359, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19898

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedOctober 4, 1983

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 97 A.D.2d 352 (Howell v. New York City Human Resources Administration) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Howell v. New York City Human Resources Administration, 97 A.D.2d 352, 467 N.Y.S.2d 359, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19898 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (Lehner, J.), entered April 22,1982, which, inter alia, granted the petition by directing respondents to comply with subpoenas duces tecum for records relating to six residents of the Arverne Diagnostic Reception Center, is modified, on the law and in the exercise of discretion, to direct preliminary inspection by Special Term of the records, in camera, before arbitration, and otherwise affirmed, without costs. Petitioner was employed as a house parent at the Arverne Diagnostic Reception Center, a New York City Human Resources Administration (HRA) residential facility for adolescent girls. He was charged by the HRA with serious acts of misconduct,^including sexual abuse and giving illegal drugs to minor girls in his charge. Pursuant to the governing labor contract, these charges are to be adjudicated by a disciplinary arbitration. Petitioner ■ issued subpoenas duces tecum for the production of any and all records in the possession of respondents concerning the charges against him and all records maintained relating to the six named residents of the center. Special Term directed compliance by respondents with these subpoenas duces tecum without making provision for prior judicial in camera [353]*353examination and redaction of any portions not necessary to the defense of the charges or inappropriate for disclosure due to their privileged nature. This was error. Petitioner did make an independent showing of necessity for inspection of otherwise confidential records. Nevertheless, there should be a preliminary “cautious screening, in camera, by the court.” (Matter of Louis F., 42 NY2d 260, 264.) The records of the residents may well include sensitive information, potentially privileged on other grounds, such as medical and psychological histories. This does not preclude the arbitrator from exercising his judgment in ruling that some of such documentary material submitted at the arbitration hearing is irrelevant or immaterial. Concur — Sandler, J. P., Asch, Silverman, Bloom and Kassal, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (Lehner, J.), entered April 22,1982, which, inter alia, granted the petition by directing respondents to comply with subpoenas duces tecum for records relating to six residents of the Arverne Diagnostic Reception Center, is modified, on the law and in the exercise of discretion, to direct preliminary inspection by Special Term of the records, in camera, before arbitration, and otherwise affirmed, without costs. Petitioner was employed as a house parent at the Arverne Diagnostic Reception Center, a New York City Human Resources Administration (HRA) residential facility for adolescent girls. He was charged by the HRA with serious acts of misconduct,^including sexual abuse and giving illegal drugs to minor girls in his charge. Pursuant to the governing labor contract, these charges are to be adjudicated by a disciplinary arbitration. Petitioner ■ issued subpoenas duces tecum for the production of any and all records in the possession of respondents concerning the charges against him and all records maintained relating to the six named residents of the center. Special Term directed compliance by respondents with these subpoenas duces tecum without making provision for prior judicial in camera [353]*353examination and redaction of any portions not necessary to the defense of the charges or inappropriate for disclosure due to their privileged nature. This was error. Petitioner did make an independent showing of necessity for inspection of otherwise confidential records. Nevertheless, there should be a preliminary “cautious screening, in camera, by the court.” (Matter of Louis F., 42 NY2d 260, 264.) The records of the residents may well include sensitive information, potentially privileged on other grounds, such as medical and psychological histories. This does not preclude the arbitrator from exercising his judgment in ruling that some of such documentary material submitted at the arbitration hearing is irrelevant or immaterial. Concur — Sandler, J. P., Asch, Silverman, Bloom and Kassal, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

97 A.D.2d 352, 467 N.Y.S.2d 359, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19898, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/howell-v-new-york-city-human-resources-administration-nyappdiv-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack