Herald Co., Inc. v. Weisenberg

• Decision Date: 07 July 1983
• Citation: 59 N.Y.2d 378,465 N.Y.S.2d 862
• Parties: , 452 N.E.2d 1190 In the Matter of HERALD COMPANY, INC., Respondent, v. David WEISENBERG, as Administrative Law Judge, Appellant, and New York State Department of Labor, Respondent.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Page 862

465 N.Y.S.2d 862

59 N.Y.2d 378, 452 N.E.2d 1190

In the Matter of HERALD COMPANY, INC., Respondent, v. David WEISENBERG, as Administrative Law Judge, Appellant and New York State Department of Labor, Respondent.

Court of Appeals of New York.

July 7, 1983.

Theodore Weinstein, Great Neck, for appellant.

S. Paul Battaglia, Syracuse, for Herald Company, Inc., respondent.

Robert Abrams, Atty. Gen. (Peter H. Schiff and Nancy A. Spiegel, Asst. Attys. Gen., of counsel), for New York State Department of Labor, respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

COOKE, Chief Judge.

An unemployment insurance hearing is presumed to be open, and may not be closed to the public unless there is demonstrated a compelling reason for closure and only after the affected members of the news media are given an opportunity to be heard. Although section 537 of the Labor Law prohibits the disclosure of certain information obtained by the Department of Labor from employees and employers, it does not provide a basis for closing the hearing itself.

This matter arose out of the resignations of two lawyers employed by the State Attorney-General in connection with an investigation of alleged political corruption in the Syracuse area. In resigning, the attorneys stated that their continued employment would violate the Code of Professional Responsibility. The actions received widespread news coverage. The two men subsequently applied for unemployment insurance compensation, but were denied benefits. They then sought a hearing before a referee pursuant to section 620 of the Labor Law.

When the hearing convened on May 4, 1981, the administrative law judge granted the two attorneys' motion to close the hearing. Petitioner's reporter requested a brief delay to permit petitioner's counsel to appear and be heard in opposition to closure, but the administrative law judge denied the request and directed that representatives of the media be barred from the hearing room. Proceedings were then held behind closed doors. Before any decision on the lawyers' unemployment compensation applications was issued, the determination denying benefits was withdrawn and the applications for benefits were granted. A request by petitioner for a transcript of the May 4 hearing was rejected.

Petitioner then brought this article 78 proceeding, seeking vacatur of the order of closure and access to the transcript. Special Term dismissed the petition (115 Misc.2d 426, 454 N.Y.S.2d 354), but the Appellate Division reversed and granted the petition to the extent of directing that petitioner be furnished with a copy of the transcript (89 A.D.2d 224, 455 N.Y.S.2d 413). This court now affirms.

As a preliminary matter, it is noted that the unemployment compensation hearing has been completed, and the petition is therefore technically moot insofar as it challenges closure of that hearing. Nonetheless, the significance of the issue involved, its likelihood of recurrence, and "the fact that orders of this nature quickly expire and thus typically evade review" dictate that this court address the issue (Matter of Westchester Rockland Newspapers v. Leggett, 48 N.Y.2d 430, 437, 423 N.Y.S.2d 630, 399 N.E.2d 518). With respect to petitioner's request for a transcript of the hearing, the proceeding clearly is not moot.

Turning to the merits, the issue presented is whether there is any basis for setting aside the strong public policy in this State of public access to judicial and administrative proceedings. ^* This policy has found expression through legislative language in a variety of contexts (see, e.g., Judiciary Law, § 4; Public Officers Law, §§ 84, 95). Where the Legislature has chosen to temper or abrogate the presumption of openness, it has done so in specific language (see, e.g., Judiciary Law, § 4; Public Officers Law, § 103), and these exceptions have been strictly construed by the courts (see People v. Jelke, 308 N.Y. 56, 65, 123 N.E.2d 769).

The administrative law judge, appealing, contends that just such an exception was created by section 537 of the Labor Law. In relevant part, subdivision 1 of section 537 provides that "[i]nformation acquired from employers or employees pursuant to this article shall be for the exclusive use and information of the commissioner in the discharge of his duties hereunder and shall not be open to the public nor be used in any court in any action or proceeding pending therein unless the commissioner is a party to such action or proceeding, notwithstanding any other provisions of law." Subdivision 2 makes it a misdemeanor for any officer or employee of the State to disclose such information "without authority of the commissioner or as otherwise required by law".

Section 537 does not require closure of hearings at which claimants present their cases for unemployment benefits. The section must be read in context with the other provisions of the unemployment insurance program as set forth in article 18 of the Labor Law. That article authorizes the commissioner to obtain comprehensive data from employers regarding such matters as the number of employees and their salaries, and to obtain information from claimants regarding their employment and earnings (see Labor Law, § 575; 12 NYCRR parts 472, 473). To protect against the unauthorized dissemination of data gathered under these reporting provisions, section 537...