Uniformed Fire Officers Ass'n, Local 854 v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Uniformed Fire Officers Ass'n, Local 854 v. City of New York

100 A.D.3d 546, 955 N.Y.S.2d 5

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

DecidedNovember 20, 2012

StatusPublished

This text of 100 A.D.3d 546 (Uniformed Fire Officers Ass'n, Local 854 v. City of New York) 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

Uniformed Fire Officers Ass'n, Local 854 v. City of New York, 100 A.D.3d 546, 955 N.Y.S.2d 5 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Arthur F. Engoron, J), entered on or about April 10, 2012, which denied the City’s motion to quash a judicial subpoena, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The City failed to show that the public interest would be harmed by the disclosure of drafts of a public safety consultant’s [547]*547report recommending a change to the 911 call system (see Matter of World Trade Ctr. Bombing Litig., 93 NY2d 1, 10 [1999]). Absent sensitive subject matter or exposure of review participants to liability, the City’s contention that the disclosure of the drafts would have a chilling effect on the internal discussions of those engaged in reviewing technical projects such as this is speculative. Petitioners, on the other hand, have shown a need for the drafts in preparing their case before the collective bargaining board.

There is no basis for the City’s claim of protection under the so-called “self-critical” privilege. This privilege has never been recognized under New York law, and this case is not the exceptional and compelling case that justifies the judicial creation of a new privilege (see Lamitie v Emerson Elec. Co.— White Rodgers Div., 142 AD2d 293, 298-299 [3d Dept 1988], lv dismissed 74 NY2d 650 [1989]). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Sweeny, Moskowitz, Renwick and Freedman, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Arthur F. Engoron, J), entered on or about April 10, 2012, which denied the City’s motion to quash a judicial subpoena, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The City failed to show that the public interest would be harmed by the disclosure of drafts of a public safety consultant’s [547]*547report recommending a change to the 911 call system (see Matter of World Trade Ctr. Bombing Litig., 93 NY2d 1, 10 [1999]). Absent sensitive subject matter or exposure of review participants to liability, the City’s contention that the disclosure of the drafts would have a chilling effect on the internal discussions of those engaged in reviewing technical projects such as this is speculative. Petitioners, on the other hand, have shown a need for the drafts in preparing their case before the collective bargaining board.

There is no basis for the City’s claim of protection under the so-called “self-critical” privilege. This privilege has never been recognized under New York law, and this case is not the exceptional and compelling case that justifies the judicial creation of a new privilege (see Lamitie v Emerson Elec. Co.— White Rodgers Div., 142 AD2d 293, 298-299 [3d Dept 1988], lv dismissed 74 NY2d 650 [1989]). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Sweeny, Moskowitz, Renwick and Freedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

100 A.D.3d 546, 955 N.Y.S.2d 5, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/uniformed-fire-officers-assn-local-854-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack