ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IS NOT USED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, IN THE SUMMARIES OF JUDICIAL AND QUASI-JUDICIAL DECISIONS PREPARED BY NYPPL

November 23, 2020

A challenge to releasing summaries of disciplinary records of New York City police officers to the public dismissed as moot following the effective date of the repeal of Civil Rights Law §50-a

Following an announcement that redacted summaries of New York City police officers' disciplinary records would be released to the public, the Patrolmen's Benevolent Association of the City of New York, Inc. [PBA] filed a petition pursuant to CPLR Article 78 seeking a court order permanently enjoining the City of New York City from publicly releasing such summaries.

Supreme Court granted the PBA's petition on the ground that "the public disclosure of the information therein would violate Civil Rights Law §50-a."

New York City appealed the Supreme Court's ruling whereupon the Appellate Division unanimously reversed the lower court's decision "on the law" and dismissed the PBA's petition as moot.

Citing Cornell Univ. v Bagnardi, 68 NY2d 583, the Appellate Division explained that as Civil Rights Law §50-a had been repealed effective June 12, 2020, "the sole basis for the permanent injunction no longer exists." Accordingly, said the court, PBA's petition was rendered moot as the result of the repeal of Civil Rights Law §50-a.

The court noted that the parties had briefed this appeal prior to the repeal of §50-a and opined that it must consider the issue of mootness nostra sponte** "because it is related to [the court's] subject matter jurisdiction."  

As no alternative grounds for relief were raised in the Article 78 petition filed by the PBA nor addressed or reserved by Supreme Court, the Appellate held that the PBA's petition was moot and dismissed its appeal.

* See §1 of Chapter 96 of the Laws of 2020.

** Nostra sponte describes an action by a panel of judges taken on the panel's own initiative and not pursuant to a request by a party in the litigation. In contrast, the term sua sponte is used to describe an action by a single presiding jurist without prompting or suggestion from a party in the litigation then pending adjudication.

The decision is posted on the Internet at http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2020/2020_06866.htm

 

CAUTION

Subsequent court and administrative rulings, or changes to laws, rules and regulations may have modified or clarified or vacated or reversed the decisions summarized here. Accordingly, these summaries should be Shepardized® or otherwise checked to make certain that the most recent information is being considered by the reader.
THE MATERIAL ON THIS WEBSITE IS FOR INFORMATION ONLY. AGAIN, CHANGES IN LAWS, RULES, REGULATIONS AND NEW COURT AND ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS MAY AFFECT THE ACCURACY OF THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THIS LAWBLOG. THE MATERIAL PRESENTED IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE AND THE USE OF ANY MATERIAL POSTED ON THIS WEBSITE, OR CORRESPONDENCE CONCERNING SUCH MATERIAL, DOES NOT CREATE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP.
New York Public Personnel Law Blog Editor Harvey Randall served as Principal Attorney, New York State Department of Civil Service; Director of Personnel, SUNY Central Administration; Director of Research, Governor’s Office of Employee Relations; and Staff Judge Advocate General, New York Guard. Consistent with the Declaration of Principles jointly adopted by a Committee of the American Bar Association and a Committee of Publishers and Associations, the material posted to this blog is presented with the understanding that neither the publisher nor NYPPL and, or, its staff and contributors are providing legal advice to the reader and in the event legal or other expert assistance is needed, the reader is urged to seek such advice from a knowledgeable professional.
New York Public Personnel Law. Email: publications@nycap.rr.com