New York State's Governor Andrew M. Cuomo to chair the virtual summer meeting of the National Governors Association

On August 5, 2020 Governor Andrew M. Cuomo was selected to serve as Chair of the National Governors Association during its virtual 2020 Summer Meeting by unanimous voted.

Governor Cuomo, who will become the longest-serving governor in the country in 2021, is also the first governor from New York to become NGA's chair and he is the first "big state" governor to preside at such a meeting in nearly 50 years.

Charging a fee for the cost of reviewing and redacting requested video footage sought pursuant to New York State's Freedom of Information Law

An individual [Plaintiff] initiated a CPLR Article 78 proceeding seeking to compel a municipality [Respondents] to comply with his request pursuant to the Freedom of Information Law ([FOIL] for certain video footage recorded by certain of Respondent's police officers as part of its Body-Worn Camera (BWC) program.

Ultimately the Appellate Division considered the two appeals that were filed as the result of rulings by Supreme Court.

In one appeal, Appeal 1, Supreme Court concluded that Public Officers Law §87:

[1] Did not permit Respondents to meet their FOIL obligations by providing a "blanket-blurred" video to Petitioner;

[2] Determined that Respondents could charge a fee "directly related to the redaction of electronic records," provided the fee was not onerous; and

[3] Remitted the matter to Respondents for reconsideration, directing Respondents to provide a privilege log to Petitioner detailing which sections of the video must be redacted and the reason for such redaction.

Also with respect to appeal No. 1 the Appellate Division said it agreed with Plaintiff that Respondents may not charge Plaintiff a fee for the costs associated with Respondent's review or redaction of the BWC footage requested by Plaintiff, noting that the Committee on Open Government has specifically opined that "if the document exists in electronic format and the agency has the authority and the ability to redact electronically, we believe it would be reasonable for the agency to provide the requested redacted copy at no charge."*

The court said that although "the advisory opinions issued by the Committee on Open Government are not binding on the courts ..., an agency's interpretation of the statutes it administers generally should be upheld if not unreasonable or irrational," citing Matter of Weslowski v Vanderhoef, 98 AD3d 1123, leave to appeal dismissed, 20 NY3d 995.

The Appellate Division then modified Supreme Court's ruling with respect to Appeal 1 by vacating that part of the judgment permitting Respondents to charge Plaintiff a fee for the cost of reviewing and redacting the requested video footage.

Addressing yet another aspect of Appeal 1, the Appellate Division, citing Konigsberg v Coughlin, 68 NY2d 245, opined that "Contrary to [Plaintiff's] further contention in appeal No. 1, [Supreme Court] did not err in remitting the matter to [Respondents] to reconsider [Plaintiff's] request, provide a privilege log, and ultimately comply with its statutory obligations and thus any decision concerning Plaintiff's entitlement to attorney's fees are premature at this juncture."

Appeal 2 concerned Plaintiff's appeal from an order denying his application, the Appellate Division rejected Plaintiff's Appeal No. 2 challenging Supreme Court's denying that part of Plaintiff's application seeking a finding of contempt based on Respondents' failure to comply with the judgment in appeal No. 1. 

The court explained that "In order to prevail on a motion to punish a party for civil contempt, the movant must demonstrate that the party charged with contempt violated a clear and unequivocal mandate of the court, thereby prejudicing the movant's rights [and the] movant has the burden of proving contempt by clear and convincing evidence." 

In this instance the Appellate Division determined that Plaintiff failed to establish that the judgment in Appeal No. 1 expressed an unequivocal mandate "inasmuch as no deadline was contained therein."

* Commission on Open Government FOIL Advisory Opinion 18904.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:  

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2020/2020_04250.htm

Providing a negative employment reference to a prospective employer in retaliation for engaging in a protected activity held to be in violation of New York State's Human Rights Law

In this action the Appellate Division observed that New York State Human Rights Law provides that it is unlawful to retaliate against an employee opposing discriminatory practices.* To establish an unlawful retaliation claim, said the court, an employee [Complainant] must show that "(1) Complainant had engaged in protected activity, (2) Complainant's employer was aware that Complainant participated in such activity, (3) Complainant suffered an adverse employment action because of Complainant's protected activity, and (4) there is a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse action." Once this initial burden has been met, "the burden then shifts to [the employer] to present legitimate, independent and nondiscriminatory reasons to support [its] actions."

The New York State Division of Human Rights [NYSDHR] found that the employer had unlawfully discriminated against the Complainant by providing a negative employment reference to a prospective employer in retaliation for Complainant's engagement in a protected activity in violation of Executive Law §296, awarding the Complainant "compensatory damages in the principal sum of $5,000 for mental anguish, plus interest at the rate of nine percent per year from June 29, 2017, and assessing a civil fine and penalty against the [Employer] in the principal sum of $10,000, plus interest at the rate of nine percent per year from June 29, 2017." Employer appealed the NYSDHR's decision.

The Appellate Division confirmed NYSDHR's ruling and denied Employer's petition and dismissed the appeal on the merits. The court explained that "The scope of judicial review under the Human Rights Law is extremely narrow and is confined to the consideration of whether the determination of the SDHR is supported by substantial evidence** in the record," citing Matter of New York State Div. of Human Rights v Roadtec, Inc., 167 AD3d 898. Further, opined the court, "Under a substantial evidence review, courts may not weigh the evidence or reject [the Commissioner's] choice where the evidence is conflicting and room for a choice exists" citing Matter of CUNY-Hostos Community Coll. v State Human Rights Appeal Bd., 59 NY2d 69.*** 

Finding that Complainant had made a prima faciecase of unlawful discrimination within the meaning of the State's Human Rights Law, the Appellate Division ruled that "the burden [of going forward] shifted to the Employer to present evidence of a legitimate, independent, and nondiscriminatory reason to support [its agent's] action, and the [employer] failed to do so."

Accordingly, the Appellate Division confirm NYSDHR's determination, finding that the award of compensatory damages for mental anguish was reasonably related to the wrongdoing, supported by substantial evidence, and comparable to other awards for similar injuries. Noting that "A court may set aside an administrative penalty only if it is so disproportionate to the offense as to be shocking to one's sense of fairness," the Appellate Division said it "perceive no basis for disturbing the civil fine and penalty assessed against the [Employer]." 

* Executive Law §296[1][e]; [7]. 

** "Substantial evidence means such relevant proof as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion or ultimate fact" [See 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176]. 

*** This case was decided with another case involving the same parties and is posted at http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2020/2020_04302.htm.

The decision in this appeal is posted on the Internet at: 
http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2020/2020_04303.htm 

Determining the fitness of candidates for appointment to positions in the public service

An appointing authority has wide discretion in determining the fitness of candidates, and this discretion is particularly broad in the hiring of law enforcement officers, to whom high standards may be applied.* As long as the administrative determination is not irrational or arbitrary and capricious, courts typically will not disturb it. ** 

Plaintiff commenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR Article 78 seeking judicial review of a Civil Service Commission's decision disqualifying him for a position as a police officer. Supreme Court denied Plaintiff's petition and dismissed the proceeding and Plaintiff appealed the court's ruling to the Appellate Division.

Addressing Plaintiff's complaint that the Commission had wrongfully denied his request for disclosure of information pertaining to his disqualification, the Appellate Division opined that the Commission's denial of Plaintiff's request was proper, citing Grossman v McMahon, 261 AD2d 54. In his appeal Grossman had contended that his request certain the background information should have been approved. The Grossman court disagreed, explaining that in a proceeding "of this nature, where disclosure is available only by leave of court pursuant to CPLR 408," Supreme Court has broad discretion in granting or denying disclosure "... although it must balance the needs of the party seeking discovery against such opposing interests as expedition and confidentiality."*** 

In the instant case the Appellate Division held that the Commission's determination disqualifying the Plaintiff from eligibility for appointment to the position of police officer was neither irrational nor arbitrary and capricious.

Addressing another argument raised by Plaintiff, the Appellate Division said that the Commission's disqualification determination violated neither §296[15] of the Human Rights Law nor §§750[5] or 752 of the Correction Law, citing Little v County of Westchester, 36 AD3d at 617.

Accordingly, the Appellate Division said it agreed with the Supreme Court's determination to deny the Plaintiff's petition and dismissal of the proceeding. 

* See Matter of Rogan v Nassau County Civ. Serv. Commn., 91 AD3d 658. 

** Matter of Verme v Suffolk County Dept. of Civ. Serv., 5 AD3d 498 

*** In Grossman the Appellate Division concluded that "Supreme Court did not abused its considerable discretion in denying disclosure of the background investigation file" Grossman had sought.

The decision is posted on the Internet at: 
http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2020/2020_04304.htm

AELE announces its online Educational Center

The Americans for Effective Law Enforcement (AELE) has announced the availability of its "Online Educational Center (OEC)." 

Through its OEC, the AELE said it will expand its dedication to providing objective, timely, accurate, legal, scientific, and evidence-based information and operational guidance for the enhancement of the criminal justice community and to reduce potential criminal and civil liability of criminal justice professionals and municipalities. 

This is the location for registering for future AELE webinars, virtual seminars, and virtual and ON-DEMAND programs. 

Educational programs will be added as they are completed. AELE invites checking the site a regular part of your organization's week's activities. 

Check out the AELEOEC at www.aeleoec.org