Matter of Caldwell v New York City PoliceDept.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Matter of Caldwell v New York City Police Department 2002 NY Slip Op 30079(U) February 27, 2002 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 0404902/2001 Judge: Eileen Bransten Republished from New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts Service. Search E-Courts (http://www.nycourts.gov/ecourts) for any additional information on this case. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [* 1 ] L. . * " -. SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK PRESENT; Hon. & \ Q W S *' . - NEW Y Justlce c . INDEX NO. h b i k 61 MOTION DATE -vMOTION SEQ. NO. I' lvjc?D - The following papers. numbered 1 t o MOTION CAL. NO. Y pLhL - Exhibits .,. dyes 0 No Upon the foregoing papers, it is ordered that this motion b a i w o - . t d C K a u 9 2 -as-a3- Check one: v 6It- b'c.vrr5S-w- Cross-Motion: Dated: =-% hd - Exhibits k\ tcdbv b r h L , 4 ¬.&,-J--J 0 ef7P - PAPERS NUMBERED Order to Show Cause - Affidavits Replying Affidavits is were re + J o b 6 Gw-m+yh Answering Affidavits 1 J. S. C. d I N A L DISPOSITION . . .. .- ... .. . ... .- * --- 0 NON-FINAL DISPOSITION . . . .. ... . . . . - [* 2 ] Petitioner, Index No. 404902/0 1 For a Judgment Pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules, Motion Date: 12/11/01 Motion Seq. No.: 001 -againstNEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al., PRESENT: EILEEN BRANSTEN,J. In this Article 78 proceeding, petitioner, apro se inmate, seeks an order reversing and vacating Freedom of InformationLaw ( FOIL ) determinations by the New York City Police Department (the Department ) . Respondent cross-moves to dismiss the petition. Backaound This proceeding involves two FOIL requests, one made in 2000 and the other the following year in.200 1. The 2000 FOIL Request The history of Caldwell s 2000 FOIL request is long and complicated. On March 2 1, 2000, Caldwell requested documents pertaining to his November 15, 1991 arrest and all reports relating to Police Ofcr M r Flinn. Petition, at 1, The request included all fie a y reports filed and doctored by her in relation to [the petitioner s] arrest [and all] medical [* 3 ] Matter o Caldwell v. New York Ciw Police Department f Index No. 404902/01 Page 2 reports relating to any substance abuse problem, and or treatment, and all promotional data. Id. The Department s Records Access Officer responded that some documents related to petitioner s arrest had been located and would be produced, that disciplinary records were exempt from disclosure pursuant to Civil Rights Law 8 50-a, that the request for all of Officer Flynn s reports was too broad, and that certain items were only available from the Office of the District Attorney. Caldwell appealedthis determination to the Records Access Appeals Officer. On July 24,2000, the Appeals O f c r informed him that: fie While the letter of the Records Access Officer indicates that some records have been. denied, it is unclear to me as to which records, if any, they were. Therefore your appeal is granted to the following extent: I have overturned the Records Access Officer s denial, and have remanded your file to him for clarification as to which, if any, records have been denied to you. He will forward a response within 30 business days of the date of this letter. On September 1,2000,Caldwell informed the Appeals Oficer that he never received a response f o the Access Officer and that he deemed his request constructively denied, rm In October 2000, he commenced an Article 78 proceeding in Supreme Court, Kings County challenging the Department s determination. By letter dated May 30,2001, the court informed Caldwell that his proceeding was marked off the calendar for failure to prove service on the Attorney General. The court [* 4 ] Matter o Caldwell v. New York City Police Department f Index No. 404902/01 Page 3 further informed Caldwell that he was not foreclosed fiom bringing another Article 78 proceeding but that his motion was no longer on the calendar. On June 14,200 1 Caldwell filed a notice of appeal to the Appellate Division, Second ? Department. Caldwell stated that the issue before the appellate court was whether his petition should have been dismissed or whether he should have been afforded an opportunity to either prove that he served the Attorney General s Office or m i the Attorney General an al additional copy of his petition. On July 20, 2001, the Appellate Division, Second Department sClerk s Office returned Caldwell s papers to h m explainingthat the May 30, i, 200 1 letter [informinghim that his petition was marked off the calendar] does not appear to constitute an appealable judgment or order and that, in any event, Caldwell had failed to properly file his appeal. A few days later--on July 26,20Ol--Caldwell instituted this Article 78 proceeding, which challenges the same determination that was the subject of his Kings County petition. The 2001 FOIL Request On January 20,2001 Caldwell sought access to documents related to various of his arrests in 1983, 1984, and 1988. On November 7, 2001--af ¬er commencement of this proceeding--the Department s Records Access Officer provided Caldwell with certain responsive documents and informed him that a search [was] being conducted for the other documents, which would be forwarded as soon as possible. A week later--onNovember 14, [* 5 ] Mutter o Culdwell v. Nau York City Police Department f Index No. 404902/0 1 Page 4 2001--the Department informed Caldwell that certain documents would be provided to him. In response to this motion, the Department submitted an attorney s affirmation stating that Caldwell has been provided with all records responsive [to] his 2001 FOIL Request that could be located pwsuant to the NYPD s diligent search. Analysis The Department argues that the petition should be dismissed in its entirety. As to the 2000 FOIL Request, without addressing the merits ofthe petition, the Department urges that: The pendency of the appeal in the Kings County Proceeding precludes this court from acting on any matter pending therein. Moreover, this court must refrain from considering the subject matter of the Kings County Proceeding also because the off calendar status of the case (as per the prior ruling of the Supreme Court, K n s County) defers any arguments relative to the merits of ig the Kings County Proceeding until such time as that case may be restored to the calendar, pursuant to the pending appeal or otherwise. Contrary to the Department s position, however, the evidence establishes that there is no appeal pending in the Appellate Division. Moreover, in marking Caldwell s initial Article 78 proceeding off the calendar, Supreme Court, Kings County explicitly informed him that he was not foreclosed from bringing another Article 78 proceeding. Because the Department s Appeals Officer overturned the Access Officer s denial and remanded to him for clarification of which, if any, records were denied, Caldwell s petition will be granted to the limited extent of ordering the Department to clariQ its response to Caldwell s 2000 FOIL request within 60 days. [* 6 ] Index No. 404902/0 1 Matter of Caldwell v. New York City Police Department Page 5 As to the 2001 FOIL request, by contrast, the petition m s be denied. The ut Department has provided Caldwell with responsive documents and affirmed that he has been provided with all records responsive to his [request] that could be located pursuant to the [Department sJ diligent search. Supplemental Affirmation in Support of Cross-Motion to Dismiss, at 1 8. Thus, his petition is moot. Matter o RattZey v. New York City Police f Department, 96 N.Y.2d 873 (200 1); Matter o Tellier v. New York City Police Deparment, f 267 A.D.2d 9, 10 (1st Dep t 1999). Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the petition is granted to the limited extent of directing the Department, consistent with the determination of its Records Appeals Offrcer, to provide petitioner with a clarified response to his 2000 FOIL request (processed under file number OOPL100522) within 60 days; it is further ORDERED that the petition is otherwise denied. This constitutes the decision and judgment of the Court. Dated: New York, New York February 27,2002 ENTER n .. \-Hon. i * 1 .. . enBransten 1

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.