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

August 20, 2021

Claiming the public-interest privilege in an effort to prevent the disclosure of communications between public officials alleged to be confidential

In this appeal, the Appellate Division considered the so-called "public-interest privilege," a common-law rule that "attaches to confidential communications between public officers, and to public officers, in the performance of their duties."

The rule may be applied where it can be shown that the public interest requires that such confidential communications or its sources should not be divulged because "the public interest would be harmed if the material were to lose its cloak of confidentiality".

The genesis of this action was a New York City Charter §93(b) investigation of the City of New York's preparation for, planning for, and response to the COVID-19 pandemic initiated by New York City's Comptroller. The Comptroller sought to identify how those actions impacted the City, its finances, residents and businesses. In connection with the investigation, the Comptroller issued a "request for information" to the City seeking information and communications related to the COVID-19 pandemic. When the City did not fully comply with the request for information, the Comptroller served a subpoena seeking the City's production of certain documents received, created or issued by the City. Additionally, over the course of the investigation, the Comptroller issued subpoenas seeking the testimony of certain City officials concerning the pandemic. 

Ultimately the matter was considered in the course of a special proceeding in which the City filed an answer and cross petition seeking a court order "dismissing the special proceeding and quashing, modifying or fixing conditions on the City's compliance with the subpoena."

Citing Matter of World Trade Ctr. Bombing Litig., 93 NY2d 1, the Appellate Division said that the governmental body asserting the public-interest privilege must offer specific support as to the potential harm to the public from disclosure of the information and, in the rare case, that this may require an in camera* examinations of the communications involved. Further, said the court, the privilege will be applied in the event the entity objecting to disclosing the information demonstrates that the public interest in confidentiality outweighs the public interest in disclosure.

The Appellate Division concluded that, based on the affidavits presented in the course of the special proceeding, in this particular situation the interest in protecting the City's pre-decisional and deliberative communications is stronger than the interest in allowing the Comptroller "to review, and possibly publish, the communications as part of his investigation."

In the words of the Appellate Division: "Given the ongoing threat of the pandemic, the Mayor and his leadership team needed access to information and unvarnished advice from all sources. This required that the sources have some assurance that their advice would remain confidential and free from fear of reprisal. The public disclosure of the requested documents involving confidential, deliberative communications among an inner circle of decision-makers concerning an emergency response to a pandemic could chill future deliberations about pressing matters, potentially to the public's harm."

Noting that Supreme Court did not make a ruling whether a privilege log or in camera review is necessary in this instance because the only issue litigated was the applicability of the privilege, the Appellate Division ruled that the Comptroller's request for a privilege log and in camera review of the documents over which the City claims privilege should be made to Supreme Court.

Click HERE to access the full text of the Appellate Division's ruling.

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