Uniformed Fire Officers Assn., Local 854 v City of New York

Uniformed Fire Officers Assn., Local 854 v City of New York 2012 NY Slip Op 07899 Decided on November 20, 2012 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on November 20, 2012
Mazzarelli, J.P., Sweeny, Moskowitz, Renwick, Freedman, JJ.
8657N 101799/12

[*1]Uniformed Fire Officers Association, Local 854, etc., et al., Petitioners-Respondents, The

v

City of New York, Respondent-Appellant.




Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Drake A.
Colley of counsel), for appellant.
Certilman Balin Adler & Hyman, LLP, East Meadow (Paul S.
Linzer of counsel), for Uniformed Firefighters Association,
Local 94, respondent.
Pryor Cashman, LLP, New York (Joshua Zuckerberg of
counsel), for Uniformed Fire Officers Association, Local 854,
respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Arthur F. Engoran, J.), entered on or about April 10, 2012, which denied the City's motion to quash a judicial subpoena, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The City failed to show that the public interest would be harmed by the disclosure of drafts of a public safety consultant's report recommending a change to the 911 call system (see Matter of World Trade Ctr. Bombing Litig., 93 NY2d 1, 10 [1999]). Absent sensitive subject matter or exposure of review participants to liability, the City's contention that the disclosure of the drafts would have a chilling effect on the internal discussions of those engaged in reviewing technical projects such as this is speculative. Petitioners, on the other hand, have shown a need for the drafts in preparing their case before the Collective Bargaining Board.

There is no basis for the City's claim of protection under the so-called "self-critical" privilege. This privilege has never been recognized under New York law, and this case is not the [*2]exceptional and compelling case that justifies the judicial creation of a new privilege (see Lamitie v Emerson Elec. Co.-White Rodgers Div., 142 AD2d 293, 298-299 [3d Dept 1988], lv dismissed 74 NY2d 650 [1989]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: NOVEMBER 20, 2012

CLERK