Matter of Yonamine v New York City Police Dept.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Matter of Yonamine v New York City Police Dept. 2012 NY Slip Op 30144(U) January 20, 2012 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 108310/2011 Judge: Martin Schoenfeld 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] SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK '\- PRESENT: 1.r / :. i f c /)0 -.~ J NEW YORK COUNTY f PART I , ' j \. i'I ' - Justice - MOTION DATE i - v MOTION SEQ. ,?,y do. r MOTION CAL. N O . -M / ~ were read The following papers, numbered 1 to Notice of Motion/ Order to Show Cause - Affidavits 011 -- Answering Affidavits -. Exhibits - _. - u Yes Cross-Motion: Exhibits ... _. . 1'; 1.- Replying Affidavits . .~., . - F(No Upon the foregoing papers, it is ordered that this motion /\, this motion tolfor / , _J ( , (7, -- I ' /b - PAPERS - NUMBERED - ~ - 'i-'1 I-' , / / ('cl "'7 ! i/c , '' 1) ( ! . , I a<-- UNFILED JUDGMENT This judgmenl has not becn entercd by the County Clerk and notice of entry canriot be sewed based hereon. To obtain entry, counsel or aulhorired representative must appear i person at the Judgment Clerk's Desk (Room n 141B). / Dated: --{< -- / ]- I ' / ' J , 1, [// /-- / , !/,/ , ' _>-- -J. S. C. /' I cr''FINAL DISPOSITION [INOW-FINAQ DISPOSBT'16N Check if appropriate: L. 1 DO NOT POST 1 - 1 REFERENCE I--I SETTLE ORDER/ JUDG. r-1 SUBMBT ORDER/ JUDG. Check one: [* 2] Index No. 1 o x 3 10/201 I -againsl- NEW Y O K K C I I Y POLIC E DI PAII I MI N l , IIAYMON13 Kl<f,l,Y, .IAMt,S RIJSSO, I IYPI OI,Y 1 E, ASSOC IATE INVESTIGA I OK, and JONATTIAN l)AVII), Re spo11d e11t s, Schocnfcld, J.: In Ihis Article 78 procccding, IWitioncr Masao Yonarnint: ( Yonamine ) acting pro .w seeks an Order, pursuant to N Y Public (T)l?iccrsTAW $ 4 84, el. seq., also hiowii as the I rccdom 01 Inl onnalioii Law (FOTT,), directing Respondents, in particiilar Respontlciit Ncw York Cily Police 1)cpartiiiciit (the NYPD ) to proviclc hiin with additionril rccords in response lo his August 2009 FOII, request, to pi-ovidc uiircdnctcd copics of the rccorcis turncd over to him by UNFILED JUDGMENT This jttdgment has not been enkred by t h e County Clerk a n d n n m nf enlry c-,i;inot be stwcd based hereon. To obkii~cnti y, c o u r w l 01 aiiLiioiiLCd representatwe must appear in person at t h e Judgment Clerk s Desk (Room 1418)- 1 [* 3] tecum for the entire iile reqiiested by him. 13AC K G IiOlJN I) AN 13 IT A C T U A I A I1IiEG A T I 0 N S I ci i t i mer, who i s presently incarcerated in tlie Fish li i I 1 Chrrccti onal Fac i 1it For 111 r Il-Lh-, submitlecl an August 19, 2000 l W J I 1 rcqiiest to the NYI L) seeking copies of lhe lisndwrillcn notes and tape recorded slalcmcnls tic bcl icvcs wcrc taken by NYPD Ileieclive Hugh Brickley, and by several ollier detectives, pcrtainitig to his arrest under indictment no.: 7804-86. Specifically, Yonamine sought copics of notes arid recorded statemenls regarding inlerviews wilh Sandra Poskiii, a witness, and willi a n y and all otlicr witiicsscs interviewed 011 Deceiiiber 4, 1986. By a Scptcmbcr 10, 2009 lctler, tlie Records Access Of licer ( RACY ), Sergeant James Russo, aclinowlcclgiiig rcccipt of Yoiiiiiiiine s request, inlbrmed hiiii lhal the response mighl take iiiore lliim lwenly days and to atitjcipatc a dcleriiiiiialioii by r)ecemher 20, 2009. In a letter dated January 14, 20 I O , tlic I O provided Yonamine with access to 13 pages ofdocumcnts. U Yonamiric, claiming eiitilleiiieiit lo iiiore records, appcalcd the R A O s dctcrmi nation lo the l k o r d s Acccss Appeals Oilker. The Appeals Officcr granted Yoiiariiiiic s administrative appeal to thc cstcrit that tlic iiiatler was remanded lo the I I A O to conciuct a furthcr scarch for tlic rcqucstcd records. While the remandcd F O I L rcqucst was hciiig processcd, l x i i befbre the FLAO issued a furthcr detemiination, Yonaminc coninicncccl an Articlc 78 proceeding. The NYPD filed a crossmotion to dismiss. On March 1, 201 I this Court granted the NYPD s cross-motion to dismiss tlic ~ [* 4] Lirrther directed that llic N YPII supply Yonamine with a r-csponsc to his documcnt request by April I S , 201 I , Clonscquenlly, the KAO engaged in a I urthcr scarch fir records and by letter to Yonamine dated April IS, 201 1. stated ;is fbllows: Alier a diligeiit scarcli conducted b y tlic 1W11, 1.Jni t, documents wcrc localed (hat arc possibly responsive lu your. . . FOIL, requesl. Specifically, . . the lW11, U n i t was able to locntc hnndwritteii iiotcs that pcrtain to the 1086 honiicide describcd i n your- rcqucsl. However, bccausc most of lhe pages arc not labeled. it is not possihle to detern-line whcther they are respoiisivc to the specific itcins listed in categories onc tlirougli l?vc in yoiir letter. Nonctliclcss, 54 pages have bccii copicd and will be provided lo YOLI . . , , Redactions have beeii niadc to the records . . . . ~111clcr rtlic] Public 0iT;ccr.s Law. . , , I hereafter,Y onamine again appealed lhis respcmsc to the Records Acccss Appeals Of licer. By letter dated .I~wc 201 1 the Kccor-ds Acccss Appeals Officer denied Yonanline s 17, appcal, stating as follows: The appeal is denied because a diligcrit and thoroiigh scsrch for the requestcd records was conducted niid tlic IIAO disclosed the 54 rcspnsive records which werc located, suljiect to appropriate redaclion. 1 11~ redactions werc appropriate, because the redacted iiiakrial is esciiipt from clisclosur-c( 1 ) pursuant to Public Ofiicers Law $ 87(2)(f)since disclosure c ~ ~ cnclanger the lifc or safety of a l d person; (2) pursuanl lo Public Officers I .aw $ 87(2)(b) and Public Ollicers I ,aw $ 89(2)(a) tiecause access to the redacted inalerial would create a11 unwarranted invasion of persona 1 privacy; (3) pursuant to Pub1 ic (-1fficers Law tj 87(2)(e)(iii) and (iv) becaiise tlic rctlacled infomation was compiled for law cnforcement purposes and disclosure would idciitify coniidential S(:)LLI CCS,rcvcal ctdidential information relatirig to the criniinal investigation aiid would reveal iioii-rod IIC criminal t tit investigative iechniqucs aiid procedures: :rnd (4) p ~ i r s ~ i ~o~E iiblic Officers Law $ 87(3)(g) to the extent that sonic of the rcdacted inf orm:ition rcprcsznts communic3tions between criiployccs wliicli constitute imi-final, intra-agency correspondencc.. Lllldcl- F(:,IL 2llSO llltly fil>llly. Other eXelllJ3tjOI~s In his current Articlc 78 I clilion, Yonamjiic q u c s that the NYPD lins improperly addrcssed his b 0IL reqirest, niid that its responses 3 ;ire iriaclcquatc and untjincly. Further, tie allcgcs [* 5] I particuIar-i7,cdr~clsons willilioldiiig parts o r a1I oi the requested documents, arid that the Court li)r condwt an i 7 C L I ~ I ~ P Iinspcclion. 1 YI The N Y PI), i n opposition, seeks n dismissaI ol thc Petition, claiiiiing that a di ligcnt search was conducted, a d that photocopies of all possible records responsive to tlic I ~ O I L request were provided to I ctitioner with redactions consistent with thc Public Officers 1.aw. DISCUSSION According to Cl l ,I< 7803(3), j~idicial review of ail adrninistrativc dccision is limited to whether a determination was madc in violalion ol lawfiil proccdure, was nfi cctived by an error of law or was arbitrary and capricious o r an abuse oLdiscretion. I;urthcr, ;is slated in A k p m v. KoLeh, 75 NY2d 561, 570 ( I 990): While jadicial rcvicw must be meaningful, the courts iiiay not subslihk their judgcment for thal ol the agency.,, . Hasically, the arbitrary and capricious standard relatcs to wlielher it particular action should have heel1 taken Boirr.cl of.~!Ghc.Of IIiiim7 l+ I w Schmtd Disl. N o I o f fiw 7i)bi or is juslilied. . , . Muttcr of Pcll of 11. ,ScurLddc h/lrrmrrr.ontJck. rV WestcIwstei-C oiinfy,34 NY2d 222, 23 I (1 974). I ursuant to Public Ol licers 1 a w 9 87(2): Each agency slinll, i i i accordance wit11 its publislicd rulcs, iiialit: available Lor. piibl ic inspection and cupying all ~-ccords,except that such agciicy may dcny access lo records or portions thcrcofthal . . . . This provision is then l dlowcd by cci-taixi cxccptions, labeled (a) tliroiigli (i). Firrtlicrmorc, pursuant io T ublic Officcrs Law @9(4)(b), when an agency denies acccss to a record ~inder 87(3), tlic agcncy shall have the burden 01 5 proving that such record Gills within the provisions of such siibdivision two. 4 [* 6] As stated in A / l ( / / i ~of Gozild 17. N c w York (Cily fo l i w l k p l . 80 NY2cl r ~ 267,274-5 (1 996): To pl-oniotc open goveriiiii(; iit and piiblic accoul-itahilily, the FC)II, iiiiposes tl broad duty o i i government to mnkc its records availnblc to thc public . . , , All govcrnimeiil records arc thus prcsumptivcly open f or public inspection and copying unless thcy fall within one of tlic cnurnernted exceptions o r f iddi~ (?ffi~*i:r~ I W 87(2). Wliilc the Legis1alui.c crcaled L 9 ; gciicral i policy of disclosurc by cnacting FOIL, it iievcrtliclcss recognizes tlnc goveimiieiit s legitimate need to kccp cerlaiti riiattcrs confidcnlial. hfu/l~r+ qf b ink 1 . Lcfliowi/z, 47 N Y 2 d 567, 571 (1 ?79) (%e balmicc is presumptively struck j 11f woi. of disclosure, but in cigtit specific narrowly constructed instances where thc govcrnincntal agency coiivincingly dei-noiistratcs its need, disclosurc will not be ordered. ) If tlic agcncy seeks protection undcr one or the slatutoiy exemptions, it can only clo so by articulating a pnrticularizcd aiid specific justification for denying acccss. Mcrlfrr qf llntc Tree, LIX 11 Komuiiw, 9 NY3d 454, 462-3 (2007). 111 balancing [lie interests of both sides, it is stated in Mrrlter of ,Johiiksoiiv. Ncw Y w k (- i/yPofict: l k p w / i t i i ~ ~ i / , AD3d 343, 349 (1 Dcpt. 1999) as 257 I ollows: NYPn s failure to present a morc expansive particularized and specificjiislificatiori f i r dcnyiiig ~ C C C S S . . is iiiifortiiiiatc. , . , However . . . . whcrc there has becn. a liornicide investigation we find that the NYP.D s sliowing. . . is sui llcjciit to clcmonshate the ncccssity ol protcctiiig the safcty and privacy rights of witncsses. The stroiig policy coIlsider-i1ti(>lis filvoring open disclosure ... dictates that petitioner s I;OI I rights iiiust also bc accorded protection. J n tlic instant proceeding, as per the NYPD s lcttcr of June 17, 201 I , an additional S4 records wcre discloscd to l ctilioiicr sihjcct to appropriate rcclactinn pursuant to Public Offkcrs Law $ 87(2)(h), (e)( iii)(iv), (I) and (g). Pctitioncr was coiivictcd of iiiurdei-, aiid considering tlic [* 7] violent n n t w c of his criminal acts :is noted in tlic NYPD s Answcr to tllc Pctilioii, tlicro appears to be, ir7lcr diu,a legitiniatc co~iccrn .protecting the sal cty of witnesses and a ixcd for no1 Jbr rcvcal iiig non-routine criminal investigation proceclurcs. Nevertlielcss, while ccrtain exemptions may very well apply here, h e y itre bunched togellicr and stated by thc NYPD in the hroadest, most general terms. I licNYPD does iiot idcntily [he naturc of the rcdactcd inl ormntion o r state what specilk exemption applies to any particular record. I hc 54 pages of disclosed material, ;11ii~icxcd to Yoiiamiiic s Petition as Exhibits 47 through 100, arc heavily rcdactcd. About 20% o f thosc pagcs, approximately twelve, arc cssentially blank, while others are mostly rcdackd. At this lime, in ordcr to IJIC~~ its burdcii pursuant to Public Orficci-s JAW 5 89(4)(b), h e N Y 1 1) should al least statc with 7 rtic~ilal.ization which excrnption or exemptions apply to cach spccific record providcd to Yonamine. Also, to the extent reasonably possible, withuut rcvcaling the acliial information, the NYPD should slak the natui-c 01 Ihe infmnation redacted for each page. For example, without giving specific iiaincs and riddress, thc NYPD could just slate that on a particular page, 1i)r which a11cxciiiption is cl:iinicd, naiiies or addresses werc rcdacled. This may obviate thc nccd for an in ~ : m w w inspection on a later date. ,Sw hf[r/iw of liiylor 1. 1 Now 1 or.k City Policc T)c!prir/mcntFOIL IJnif, 25 AD3d 347 (1 Dcpt. 2006). Finally, pursuant to his FOIL rcqucst, Yonamiiic scclis any and a1 I . . . records , , . concerning the ali7rerucntioncd inalter. As riotcd by the NYI II s lelter ol J ~ u i c 2010, a 17, diligcnt and thoroiigh starch for the requcstcd rccords was coiiduckci aiid [shows] 54 responsive rccords. Considei.ing that prior to Yonamiiic s earlier Articlc 78 procecding, the NYPD, also claiiiiirig to liavc donc a diligent search, was only ablc to provide 13 pages olrecor-cls arid not tl1c 54 pages it has now produccd, there sliould hc some msitrancc that 110 additional records can be 6 [* 8] done by siibiniiting to both Petitioncr and tlic Clourt, cithcr a certification ironi [he NYPD s records CONCLUSJON, ORDER A N D J U DC EMENT Accordingly, it is licrcby ORDEREL) that ihe Pelition is granted lo the extent that within ninety (00) days from thc date o f this decision licsponclcnts shall submit to T elilioner a wrilten statement particulariAig which cxcmption or cxcriiptions spccifically apply to each of thc 54 records produced, and slating thc naturc of tlic iiifomation redactccl from each such pagc; and it is fui-thcr ORDERED that within ninety (90) days lironl thc date of this dccision, Kcspondcrlts sJ~nll submit lo Petitioner , with a copy lo the Court, either ;I certilication hoin the New York City Police Deparlment s liecords Acccss Officer or :in affiriiialion froni its I: ounsel that all responsive documents have heen disclosed, and that ;L diligent search has been conducted for any docm1ents that could not bc locatcd, and it is furthcr ADJUDGED that, in all otlier respects, tlic I ctitjon i s dcnicd, and the procccding is dismissed. UNFILED JUDGMENT ---- Dated: New York, New York Januaiy 20, 201 2 ,. This judgment has not iiq-:cr, ctercil by the County Clerk and notice of cn!ry caii:x! k -..,rved based hereon. To obtain entry, courisel or auttiurized representative must appear in person ai the Judgment Clerk s Desk (Rmm 1416).

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.