Empire Ctr. for Pub. Policy v. N.Y.C. Police Pension Fund
| Decision Date | 24 November 2020 |
| Docket Number | Index No. 156486/18,Case No. 2020-01575,12485 |
| Citation | 188 A.D.3d 595,132 N.Y.S.3d 750 (Mem) |
| Parties | In re EMPIRE CENTER FOR PUBLIC POLICY, Petitioner–Appellant–Respondent, v. NEW YORK CITY POLICE PENSION FUND, Respondent–Respondent–Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
188 A.D.3d 595
132 N.Y.S.3d 750 (Mem)
In re EMPIRE CENTER FOR PUBLIC POLICY, Petitioner–Appellant–Respondent,
v.
NEW YORK CITY POLICE PENSION FUND, Respondent–Respondent–Appellant.
12485
Index No. 156486/18
Case No. 2020-01575
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
ENTERED: November 24, 2020
Government Justice Center, Inc., Albany (Cameron J. Macdonald of counsel), for appellant-respondent.
James E. Johnson, Corporation Counsel, New York (Melanie Tharamangalam West of counsel), for respondent-appellant.
Renwick, J.P., Kapnick, Gesmer, Kern, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Melissa A. Crane, J.), entered August 26, 2019, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted the CPLR article 78 petition seeking an order compelling respondent, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL), to disclose the names of retired police officer pension members, to the extent of ordering respondent to produce records with unredacted names of all retirees in the 2017 fiscal year, except for names which respondent already withheld in response to petitioner's 2014 FOIL request, unanimously modified, on the law, to deny the petition in its entirety, and dismiss the proceeding, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.
Supreme Court properly upheld respondent's decision to refuse to disclose the names of respondent's 2008 to 2014 retirees, on the ground the request is duplicative and time-barred (see Matter of United Probation Officers Assn. v. City of New York, 187 A.D.3d 456, 129 N.Y.S.3d 775 [1st Dept. 2020] ; accord, e.g., Matter of Stankevich v. New York City Police Dept., 173 A.D.3d 507, 508, 100 N.Y.S.3d 513 [1st Dept. 2019], lv denied 35 N.Y.3d 902, 2020 WL 2079114 [2020] ).
Conversely, in opposing disclosure of its police officer retirees' names, respondent submitted affidavits outlining the dangers faced by police officers generally, and detailing the risks retired officers faced, including thefts of handguns and assaults by persons they had arrested during their careers. Respondent
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Goundan v. Pav-Lak Contracting Inc.
...A.D.3d 548, 549, 944 N.Y.S.2d 78 [1st Dept. 2012] ). The vague testimony by plaintiff's foreman that weekly toolbox meetings addressed 132 N.Y.S.3d 750 a different safety topic each week, and the foreman's mention of "wearing harnesses" among several other examples of such topics, failed to......
-
Ellis v. City of N.Y.
...established prima facie absence of actual or constructive notice of the condition. The caretaker's testimony and affidavit, along 188 A.D.3d 595 with the janitorial schedule, demonstrated that he last inspected the stairs the day before at the end of his shift, and that the accident occurre......