TO SEARCH this database type in a key word or phrase in the box in the upper left and any material containing the word or phrase will be displayed for your review.
State of New York vs. COVID-19 - Governor Andrew M. Cuomo periodically updates New Yorkers on the state's progress during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. The latest reports of the number of new cases, the percentage of tests that were positive and many other relevant data points concerning COVID-19 are available at forward.ny.gov.
N.B. §22 of the New York State's General Construction Law, in pertinent part, provides that “Whenever words of the masculine or feminine gender appear in any law, rule or regulation, unless the sense of the sentence indicates otherwise, they shall be deemed to refer to both male or female persons.” NYPPL applies this protocol to individuals referred to in a decision self-identifying as LGBTQA+.
July 31, 2020
July 30, 2020
Processing Freedom of Information Law requests for disciplinary records of law enforcement personnel involving "unsubstantiated and unfounded complaints against an officer"
The staff of the Committee on Open Government is authorized to issue advisory opinions. The ensuing staff advisory opinion is based solely upon the information presented in your correspondence, except as otherwise indicated.
I am writing in response to your request for an advisory opinion regarding the obligations of the City of Syracuse (the "City") under the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) in connection with requests for law enforcement disciplinary records, specifically relating to unsubstantiated and unfounded complaints against a police officer. In your inquiry, you note that Public Officers Law §86(6)(a) defines “law enforcement disciplinary records” to include “complaints, allegations, and charges against an employee.”
You ask whether “an employer of a law enforcement employee could lawfully withhold unsubstantiated and unfounded complaints against an officer, or if the employer is obligated to disclose all complaints against an employee regardless of outcome.” I note that yours is the first, but not the only, inquiry we have received in recent weeks asking this question.
As you know, until very recently, personnel records of police officers, corrections officers, and paid firefighters that were used to evaluate performance toward continued employment were specifically exempted from disclosure by state statute: Civil Rights Law §50-a and, because of this, Public Officers Law § 87(2)(a). On June 12, 2020, however, Governor Andrew M. Cuomo signed into law Chapter 96 of the Laws of 2020 repealing Civil Rights Law §50-a and amending FOIL to add certain provisions relating to law enforcement disciplinary records. Where prior to June 12, 2020, access to personnel records of a police officer was governed by §50-a and the resulting FOIL exemption pursuant to §87(a)(2), ending the FOIL analysis immediately, access is now governed by FOIL alone.
As a general matter, FOIL is based upon a presumption of access. All records of an agency are available except to the extent that records or portions thereof fall within one or more grounds for exemption appearing in §87(2)(a) through (q) of the Law. Section 87(2)(b) of FOIL, a provision which until June 12, 2020, had not been applied to law enforcement disciplinary records because of Civil Rights Law §50-a, permits an agency to withhold records or portions of records which “if disclosed would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy under the provisions of subdivision two of section eighty-nine of this article . . . .” As you note in your inquiry, the Committee on Open Government has frequently addressed issues relating to rights of access to disciplinary records of public employees pursuant to this subsection of the FOIL.
In FOIL Advisory Opinion 17195, staff of the Committee opined that a record of an unsubstantiated or unfounded complaint may be withheld under FOIL where the agency determines such complaint would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy:
The exception of significance is §87(2)(b), which authorizes an agency to withhold records insofar as disclosure would constitute “an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” Although the standard concerning privacy is flexible and may be subject to conflicting interpretations, the courts have provided substantial direction regarding the privacy of public employees. It is clear that public employees enjoy a lesser degree of privacy than others, for it has been found in various contexts that they are required to be more accountable than others. The courts have found that, as a general rule, records that are relevant to the performance of one’s official duties are available, for disclosure in such instances would result in a permissible rather than an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy . . . . Conversely, to the extent that records are irrelevant to the performance of one’s official duties, it has been found that disclosure would indeed constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy . . . . [W]hen allegations or charges of misconduct have not yet been determined or did not result in disciplinary action, the records relating to such allegations may, in my view, be withheld, for disclosure would result in an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy [see e.g., Herald Company v. School District of City of Syracuse, 430 NYS 2d 460 (1980)]. Further, to the extent that charges are dismissed or allegations are found to be without merit, I believe that they may be withheld based on considerations of privacy.
Committee staff have issued similar opinions in FOIL AO 19771, FOIL AO 16764, FOIL AO 12802, FOIL AO 12722, FOIL AO 11747, FOIL AO 9463 , and FOIL AO 7602. In sum, Committee staff have long advised that where an agency determines that a record of an unsubstantiated or unfounded complaint would, if disclosed (even in a redacted form (see, e.g., FOIL AO 19771)), constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, such record need not be disclosed.
The new provisions of FOIL did not make changes to provisions concerning personal privacy as defined in §87(2)(b). Based on our long-standing interpretation that requires an agency to determine if an unsubstantiated or unfounded complaint against an employee would, if disclosed, constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, and absent language expressing that the legislature intended that law enforcement disciplinary records should enjoy less protection than the disciplinary records of other government employees, we do not impute such an intent. Moreover, while no court has yet issued an opinion formally answering the question whether unsubstantiated complaints against law enforcement personnel must be disclosed pursuant to FOIL, at least two have recently temporarily enjoined the disclosure of such complaints pending a final determination. 
In further support of this interpretation, there is a suggestion in the new FOIL provisions that some law enforcement disciplinary records, which the legislature calls “technical infractions” (FOIL §89(2-c)), enjoy greater (rather than less) protection than such infractions contained in the disciplinary records of other government employees. In other words, while there is some express language in the statute to render certain records of law enforcement agency employees less available than those of other government employees, there is nothing in the statute to suggest that the legislature intended that any of the records of law enforcement agency employees be more available than the records of other government employees.
Accordingly, it is our opinion, in the absence of judicial precedent or legislative direction, that the law does not require a law enforcement agency to disclose “unsubstantiated and unfounded complaints against an officer” where such agency determines that disclosure of the complaint would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, but also does not require an agency to withhold such a record. Rather, as with all of the FOIL exemptions except §87(2)(a), which no longer applies to this situation since the repeal of §50-a, an agency may, but not must, withhold as exempt a record meeting the criteria for such exemption. In light of the repeal of §50-a, a request for disciplinary records relating to a police officer must be reviewed in the same manner as a request for disciplinary records of any other public employee. As such, based on our prior analyses of the disclosure requirements relating to disciplinary records of government employees generally, when allegations or charges of misconduct have not yet been determined or did not result in disciplinary action, the records relating to such allegations may in our view be withheld where the agency determines that disclosure would result in an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. In addition, to the extent that charges are dismissed, or allegations are found to be without merit, we believe that those records also may be withheld based on considerations of privacy.
Thank you for your inquiry.
Very truly yours,
/s/ Shoshanah Bewlay
Court holds a video of the event, together with the testimony given at his disciplinary hearing, was substantial evidence that the Petitioner was guilty of misconduct
July 29, 2020
Filing a claim for workers' compensation benefits death benefits in cases where the cause of death was suicide
In Workers' Compensation claims cases involving a suicide the Appellate Division said that the rule is that "the causal relationship between an industrial accident and a resulting mental condition need not be direct and immediate. It is sufficient that the industrial accident is a contributing cause, even if it precipitated [the] decedent's preexisting mental condition."
July 28, 2020
Appeal to the Commissioner of Education dismissed where Petitioner initiated litigation raising substantially similar claims and seeks substantially similar relief
The Court of Appeals said that it is not “discretionary” for government officials to abdicate their responsibility to pursue wrongdoing if that decision is being made to benefit someone personally.
The court explained that “... a public servant’s knowing refusal to perform a mandatory action coupled with an intent to obtain a benefit constitutes nonfeasance,” in upholding the police official’s conviction. In the words of the court, “... when a public servant, with the intent to obtain a benefit, knowingly refuses to perform a discretionary duty, the performance of which is so obviously fundamental to accomplishing the goals of the public servant’s office, that refusal cannot legitimately be understood to be an exercise of discretion; rather, it constitutes an abuse of discretion, which equates to nonfeasance.”
Other such transgressions include misfeasance in office, acting unlawfully, and malfeasance in office, performing official acts badly.
July 27, 2020
July 25, 2020
July 24, 2020
July 23, 2020
Placing an employee on leave without pay upon the initiation of a disciplinary action against the employee
In the alternative, in the event an individual served with disciplinary charges fails or refuses to participate in the disciplinary hearing without good cause, the appointing authority may elect to proceed to conduct the disciplinary hearing as scheduled "in absentia."
It is well-settled that should the employee fail to appear at the disciplinary hearing as scheduled, the appointing authority may elect to proceed with the disciplinary action and actually hold a hearing in absentia rather then merely proceed to impose a penalty on the individual simply because of the employee's failure to appear as scheduled [see Mari v. Safir, 291 AD2d 298, leave to appeal denied, 98 NY2d 613].
As the Appellate Division held in Mujtaba v NYS Dept. of Education, 148 A.D.2d 819; 107 A.D.3d 1066, “due process does not require that [the charged employee] be present at an administrative hearing, but rather requires notice of the charges and an opportunity to be heard.” What also is required, however, is that in the event the employee fails to appear at the disciplinary hearing as scheduled, the appointing authority make a diligent effort to contact the employee to inform him that the scheduled disciplinary hearing would take place even if he did not participate and determine if the individual had a reasonable explanation for his failure to appear at the disciplinary hearing as schedule..
Further, the charging party must prove its case by presenting substantial evidence of the employee’s incompetence or misconduct in the course of a disciplinary hearing held in absentia.
On the other hand, there is case law holding that an arbitrator may proceed with a disciplinary arbitration hearing in the absence of the appointing authority or its representative and make a final, binding determination and award. The appointing authority had boycotted a scheduled arbitration hearing because it believed that the employee was not entitled to submit the matter to arbitration. In Matter of Hall, 235 AD2d 75, the Appellate Division sustained the arbitrator’s award in favor of the employee.
The instant decision is posted on the Internet at:
Public Personnel Law E-books
The Discipline Book - A concise guide to disciplinary actions involving public employees in New York State set out in a 700 page e-book. For more information click on https://booklocker.com/books/5215.html
A Reasonable Disciplinary Penalty Under the Circumstances - A 442-page e-book focusing on determining an appropriate disciplinary penalty to be imposed on an employee in the public service in instances where the employee has been found guilty of misconduct or incompetence. Now available in two formats - as a large, paperback print edition and as an e-book. For more information click on http://booklocker.com/books/7401.html
The Layoff, Preferred List and Reinstatement Manual - A 645 page e-book reviewing the relevant laws, rules and regulations, and selected court and administrative decisions. For more information click on http://booklocker.com/books/5216.html