The Legal Aid Soc'y v. N.Y. Cnty. Dist. Attorney's Office
| Decision Date | 20 December 2022 |
| Docket Number | Index No. 452190/2022,MOTION SEQ. No. 001 |
| Citation | 2022 NY Slip Op 34362 (U) |
| Parties | In the Matter of THE LEGAL AID SOCIETY Petitioner, v. NEW YORK COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
DECISION, ORDER, AND JUDGMENT
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 15 were read on this motion to/for ARTICLE 78 (BODY OR OFFICER) .
In this CPLR article 78 proceeding, the petitioner seeks judicial review of a March 29, 2022 determination of the records access appeals officer of the District Attorney of New York County (DA) rejecting, in part, the petitioner's appeal of a February 24, 2022 DA determination denying, in part, its request for agency records pursuant to the Freedom of Information Law (Public Officers Law § 84, et seq.; hereinafter FOIL). In its request, the petitioner sought all documents and records in the DA's possession that referred or related to the proceedings in People v Melic Bradford, New York County Indictment Nos. 3092/2007 and 1324/2007, both criminal actions prosecuted in the Supreme Court, New York County. The DA answers the petition and submits the administrative record. The petition is denied and the proceeding is dismissed.
On March 8, 2007, at approximately 1:03 p.m., Melic Bradford assisted by a separately charged minor accomplice, held a 14-year-old student at knife point inside the 7th floor restroom of the Leadership and Public Service High School (the high school) at 90 Trinity Place in Manhattan. Bradford threatened to shoot the 14-year-old, then rummaged through his pockets, and forced the victim to give his jacket to Bradford's codefendant. Bradford then punched the victim and, when the victim fell to the floor, Bradford took the victim's earrings. Under Indictment Number 1324/07, Bradford and his codefendant were charged with robbery in the first degree and robbery in the second degree (Penal Law §160.10 [1]). In a separate incident, occurring on June 10, 2007 at approximately 12:35 p.m., Bradford, who then was under the influence of cocaine and armed with a handgun, approached a small group of men in front of 240 Madison Street in Manhattan, fired three shots into the group, and fled the area. One of Bradford's bullets struck a man in the back, ultimately leaving him paralyzed. On June 15, 2007, Bradford was arrested, based on an eye-witness identification. He first denied having been involved in the shooting, but eventually admitted to police officers that he had been the shooter, and that he had disposed of the gun in the East River. Under Indictment Number 3092/07, Bradford was charged with attempted murder in the second degree (Penal Law §§ 110, 125.25[1]), assault in the first degree, and two counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (Penal Law §§265.03 [1][b], 265.03[3]).
On December 13, 2007, Bradford was convicted, upon his pleas of guilty, to assault in the first degree, robbery in the first degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, the latter two offences having been charged under Indictment Numbers 2279/2007 and 3330/2007. He thereupon was sentenced to an aggregate determinate term of 18 years of incarceration, followed by 5 years of post-release supervision. The Supreme Court denied his motion to withdraw his pleas of guilty to the crimes of assault in the first degree and robbery in the first degree. By decision and order dated May 26, 2009, the Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the judgment of conviction (see People v Bradford, 62 A.D.3d 594, 594 [1st Dept 2009]), rejecting Bradford's contention that his attorney acted improperly, and concluding that "[c]ounsel negotiated a plea whereby defendant received a favorable disposition involving four separate crimes that were increasingly serious, culminating in the shooting that left defendant's victim paralyzed."
Bradford thereafter retained the petitioner to represent him. On September 17, 2021 and September 25, 2021, the petitioner submitted FOIL requests to the DA's office, seeking all public records referring or relating to Bradford's arrest and convictions, specifying 56 categories of documents in its first request, and 51 categories of documents in its second request. In a February 24, 2022 determination, the DA's records access officer granted the petitioner's request to the extent of releasing and providing the petitioner with 685 pages of documents in 10 PDF files, along with two surveillance DVDs and one 911-call CD. The DA waived the copying fee. The records access officer, however, denied the petitioner's request for 40 specific documents, concluding that they were statutorily exempt from disclosure under FOIL.
The DA's records access officer concluded that the exemption applicable to disclosure of grand jury records and materials (see Public Officers Law § 87[2][a]) applied to the petitioner's requests, in connection with Indictment No. 3092/2007, for a CD depicting the gunshot victim at the hospital, along with accompanying witness testimony, that was presented to the grand jury, a 27-page grand jury presentation, and a grand jury subpoena to the victim of the crimes charged under that indictment. The records access officer invoked the same exemption with respect to the petitioner's requests, in connection with Indictment No. 1324/2007, for a 60-page grand jury presentation, a certificate of affirmative grand jury action for Bradford's minor codefendant, New York City Department of Education (DOE) records for Bradford, Bradford's codefendant, a minor student witness at the high school, and complaining witness Jeremy Espaillat, grand jury subpoenas and letters to a minor witness and the high school itself, and the minor codefendant's notice of intention to testify before the grand jury.
The DA's records access officer invoked the statutory exemption for attorney work-product (see Public Officers Law § 87[2][a]) as to the petitioner's requests, in connection with Indictment No. 3092/2007, to produce an assistant district attorney's (ADA's) confidential memo with respect to his or her thoughts on the case, the ADA's recommendations on the case, the arraignment recommendations of ADA David Hammer, and the ADA's notes to another ADA concerning Bradford. She invoked the same exemption with respect to the petitioner's requests, in connection with Indictment No. 1324/2007, for disclosure of a communication from the DA's Chief of Trial Division to an ADA that included suggestions with respect to the disposition of the case, a confidential case memo and notes circulated between the ADA assigned to the case and his or her supervisors, arraignment recommendations on the case by ADA Bandler, an ADA's notes to another ADA in connection with Bradford and his minor codefendant, an ADA's notes from an interview of Bradford's minor codefendant, all ADAs' research with respect to the charges against Bradford, the ADA's grand jury preparation notes, a handwritten note circulated between ADAs containing suggestions on the case, a post-it note provided to an ADA from a supervisor concerning bail recommendations, and the ADAs' case information and action sheet.
The DA invoked the statutory exemptions from disclosure pertaining records sealed by virtue of other state statutes, as set forth in CPL 160.50 and Public Officers Law § 87(2)(a), with respect to the petitioner's requests, in connection with Indictment No. 1324/2007, for the production of a CASES report, rap sheet, debriefing agreement, and a take-out order referable to Bradford's minor codefendant, as well as ADA notes from an interview of the codefendant, and a photo array of the codefendant. She relied on the same exemption with respect to the petitioner's request for Bradford's sealed case file, and the arrest report, DA data sheet, Criminal Court arraignment minutes, and Criminal Court complaint referable to Bradford's minor codefendant, along with the certificate of affirmative grand jury action, court appearance control, and notice of intention to testify before the grand jury referable to Bradford's codefendant.
With respect to the petitioner's request for pedigree information provided by the victim's mother, who did not testify, the DA's records access officer invoked the statutory exemption for documents that would involve an undue invasion of privacy (see Public Officers Law § 87[2][b]). In connection with the petitioner's request to produce documents related or referring to the investigative search undertaken by law enforcement authorities to locate Bradford, including documents pertaining to gang intelligence, the DA's records access officer invoked the exemption applicable to documents that would reveal non-routine law enforcement methods and techniques (see Public Officers Law § 87[2][e][iv]).
The petitioner appealed the adverse portions of the February 24 2022 determination to the DA's records access appeals officer. Subsequent to that determination, the petitioner provided the DA's office with authorizations, signed by Bradford, requesting release of his DOE records and his own 2006 sealed case file referable to other alleged criminal conduct. By determination dated March 29, 2022, the appeals officer affirmed the February 24, 2022 determination, in part, concluding that the records access officer correctly invoked the various statutory exemptions as to most of the documents that the petitioner requested. The appeals officer, however, granted the petitioner's request for production of...
To continue reading
Request your trial