Appellate Division held the New York State Office of Court Administration properly denied a FOIL request, which it described as "overbreadth"

The New York Civil Liberties Union Foundation [Petitioner] was concerned that New York State Office of Court Administration [OCA] "is privately instructing judges how to interpret and apply substantive law". Respondent filed a CPLR Article 78 petition seeking a court order compelling the New York State Office of Court Administration [OCA] to disclose records requested by Petitioner pursuant to the Freedom of Information Law [FOIL], Public Officers Law §§84-90. Such records included all documents directed to judges or their chambers staff, from January 1, 2011 to the present, "in which federal or state court decisions, statutes, regulations, or ordinances are summarized, analyzed, interpreted, construed, explained, clarified, or applied". Supreme Court granted the petition and OCA appealed the Supreme Court's ruling.

The Appellate Division unanimously reversed the Supreme Court's decision "on the law," opining that Petitioner's concern that OCA is privately instructing judges how to interpret and apply substantive law "is unfounded, as the court is not bound by [OCA's] interpretations." Citing People v Knickerbocker Ice Co., 99 NY 181, the Appellate Division said "[it] has always been the province of the court to declare what the law is."

The court said that OCA "properly denied the FOIL request, insofar as raised on appeal, consititted"overbreadth", noting OCA had established that that the information sought by Petitioner is "not stored in any centralized manner, and responding to the FOIL request would involve manually reviewing employees' files and making individual determinations as to" each file.

In the words of the Appellate Division: "Under the circumstances presented, [OCA] made a particularized showing that attempting to comply with this broad request would be impracticable" and it does not avail Petitioner to argue "that [its FOIL] request should have been interpreted in a much more limited form," where "nothing in the language of the original request or the administrative appeal supports such an interpretation".

In addition the Appellate Division pointed out that OCA had properly determined that the records at issue "were exempt under the attorney-client privilege ... and the attorney work product privilege."

Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's decision posted on the Internet.

 

The United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia holds public policy compels the rejection of former President Trump's claim of immunity in a criminal case

On August 1, 2023, former President Donald J. Trump was charged in a four-count criminal Indictment stemming from his actions challenging the 2020 election results and interfering with the sequence of procedures set forth in the Constitution of the United States providing for the transfer of power from one President to the next.

The former President moved to dismiss the Indictment and a federal district court denied his motion. Former President Trump appealed the lower court's ruling.

The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the  federal district court's denial of the former President's motion to dismiss the Indictment.

In the words of the Circuit Court of Appeals, for the purpose of this criminal case  "former President Trump has become citizen Trump, with all of the defenses of any other criminal defendant. But any executive immunity that may have protected him while he served as President no longer protects him against this prosecution."

Click HERE to access the United States Court of Appeal for the District of Columbia Circuit's decision in United States of America v Donald J. Trump posted on the Internet.

Terminating a probationary employee without notice and hearing

Plaintiff, a correction officer serving as a probationary appointee, appealed Supreme Court's ruling denying his petition challenging his termination from his employment prior to the completion of his maximum period of probation. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's decision. 

Plaintiff had commenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR Article 78 to review the appointing authority's decision to terminate Plaintiff's probationary employment. His petition, alleged, among other things, that the determination was arbitrary and capricious.

The Appellate Division, citing, Matter of Trager v Suffolk County, 185 AD3d 697, explained "An employee's probationary appointment may be terminated ... for any reason or no reason at all, so long as the termination was not in bad faith or for an improper or impermissible reason".* Further, the decision notes that "In demonstrating that administrative actions were made in bad faith ... the petitioner bears a heavy burden of proof, for which conclusory allegations and speculative assertions will not suffice".

Citing Matter of Trager v Suffolk County, 185 AD3d at 698, the decision notes that an appointing authority's discretion to terminate probationary employees is especially broad "in appointment of law enforcement officers, to whom high standards may be applied."

Noting that Plaintiff did not allege that his dismissal from his position was made in bad faith, the court said the record indicated that there was "a rational basis for the determination terminating the [Plaintiff's] probationary employment and that the [appointing authority's] determination was not arbitrary and capricious."

* In York v McGuire, 63 NY2d 760, the Court of Appeals set out the basic rule concerning the dismissal of probationary employees as follows: “After completing his or her minimum period of probation and prior to completing his or her maximum period of probation, a probationary employee can be dismissed without a hearing and without a statement of reasons, as long as there is no proof that the dismissal was done for a constitutionally impermissible purpose, or in violation of statutory or decisional law, or the decision was made in bad faith.”

Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's decision posted on the Internet.