Matter of Collins v New York City

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Matter of Collins v New York City 2013 NY Slip Op 32549(U) October 16, 2013 Sup Ct, New York County Docket Number: 402084/11 Judge: Peter H. Moulton Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various state and local government websites. These include the New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts Service, and the Bronx County Clerk's office. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. SCANNED ON 10/21/2013 [* 1] SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK - NEW YORK COUNTY PART - - - PRESENT: Justice INDEX NO. MOTION DATE - v - C 1\fL;J OF ·"-f/ MOTION SEQ. NO. MOTION CAL. NO. The following papers, numbered 1 to _ _ were read on this motion to/for _ _ _ _ _ __ PAPERS NUMBERED Notice of Motion/ Order to Show Cause Answering Affidavits - Affidavits - Exhibits ... Exhibits - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Replying A f f i d a v i t s - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - en <:t w Cross-Motion: en 2 0 a: (!) D Yes D No Upon the foregoing papers, it is ordered that this motion W2 u~~ en ..J \._,. I ::::> -I ..., 0 0 LL. I- w 0 J: w l- ~ LL. a: a: a: 0 w a: >- -1 -I :::::> LL. 1- (.) w c.. en w a: ¢ en w en <:t (.) 2 0 l- o Dated: J() l} b} J3 ----'-------- ~ Check one: ~L Check if appropriate: (_ ·UTr. J.S.C. HON ¢ P.a::. ¢1 ER H..M.OULTON. D Nof'IJIJlRfMEtS~SYf~ POST D REFERENCE DISPOSITION 0 DO NOT [* 2] Supreme Court: New York County Part 40B --------------------------------------x In the Matter of the Application of D'JUAN COLLINS, Petitioner, For a Judgment under Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules, -aqainst- Index No. 402084/11 YORK CITY, THE NEW YORK CITY PO....._J!NF'fl._t DEPARTMENT, and the RECORDS ACCESS ~ hiiS 110[ Ji/;,,J(J0GNJ. NEW ~~ ntry ~ entered Ftvr .i·-~I Or a:t:,~~Cou Respondents. ------------------------------------~~ ~· Peter H. Moulton, Justice ·'lbe~~':!!!~'!:;":n~'~: .,...."8 f),,_.,_}°Ve f1l .,,,........_"··-····-.-.. _. ¢ -~ (~/ to.. ··rei:i.e~......... and ,. . ~ .. In this Article 78 proceeding respondents move ... ...... reargue this court's decision dated January 7, 2013. The January 7th decision denied respondents' motion to dismiss the petition. The motion to renew and reargue was adjourned for petitioner pro §.§2. to submit opposition papers. Despite the elapse of more than four months, he has failed to do so. The motion to renew is granted on default as set forth below. BACKGROUND Petitioner was convicted of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third and fifth degree in 2007. By letter dated July 21, 2010, petitioner requested pursuant 1 ·~ [* 3] to FOIL copies of certain documents in the possession of respondent New York City Police Department ("NYPD"). The Records Access Officer request in a letter dated ("RAO") denied petitioner's FOIL January 14, 2011. By letter dated February 13, 2011, petitioner administratively appealed the RAO's determination. The appeal was denied by the Records Access Appeals Officer ("RAAO") in a letter dated March 29, 2011. Petitioner timely brought this Article 78 proceeding to compel respondents to provide the records within the a]tlbit of his FOIL request. During the pendency of this proceeding, respondents provided 67 pages of documents responsive to petitioner's FOIL request. According to respondents these documents pertain to the laboratory analysis for conviction. the cocaine evidence relating to petitioner's These records include the original laboratory analysis in 2007 as well as a re-testing in 2010. Respondents argued that the remaining responsive documents, numbering 115 pages, which apparently consist of procedures embodied in manuals dated 2007 and 2010, from disclosure under FOIL. laboratory were exempt According to respondents, the manuals describe in precise detail each step taken by the NYPD in testing narcotics evidence. Respondents base this claim of exemption on the assertion that the production of such laboratory procedures would 2 [* 4] essentially provide disclosure to numerous other defendants charged with narcotics crimes who are awaiting prosecution [as well as convicted felons pursuing appeals or. postconviction rel f] at a time when such disclosure is not available to them pursuant to the specific discovery provisions of the CPL and the Habeas Corpus Act. . . This disclosure would allow such indi victuals to circumvent the discovery provisions governing the particular proceedings that they are subject to, thereby interfering with those judicial proceedings. (Affirmation of Krista Ashbery, dated February 6, 201~, i 6.) Respondents moved to dismiss the petition on the basis of this argument, citing POL § 87 (2) (e) (i). That provision exempts from production records "compiled for law enforcement purposes" that would "interfere with law enforcement investigations or judicial proceedings." At the time respondents brought their motion to dismiss Collins had no judicial proceedings pending. argued that disclosure of the "interfere" with judicial proceedings involving other criminal defendants. For reasons explained in the January argument to be persuasive and I manuals 7th will Respondents decision, I did not find this denied respondents' motion to dismiss. In the instant motion, respondents offer new facts not available to it at the time they filed their motion to dismiss. Petitioner brought a habeus corpus proceeding in the Southern District of New York after the motion to dismiss was initially filed. Accordingly Collins did have a judicial proceeding pending 3 [* 5] when the motion to dismiss was before this court. DISCUSSION To demonstrate its entitlement to reargue this court's January 7th decision respondents must demonstrate that this court "overlooked or misapprehended the relevant facts, or misapplied any controlling principle of law." (Foley v Roche, 68 AD2d 558, 567.) Respondent fails to carry that burden. Accordingly, respondents have failed to state grounds for a motion to reargue. (See William P. Pahl Equipment Corp. v Kassis, 182 AD2d 22, lv denied 80 NY2d 1005.) However, unknown to respondents have offered relevant facts that were it at the time it made its motion to dismiss. Respondents have shown that petitioner brought a habeus proceeding in Federal Court. This meant that he did have a judicial proceeding pending at the time he was pursuing this Article 78 proceeding to reverse the RAAO' s determination. provides a valid basis for respondents' This new fact motion to renew. (See Forteau v Westchester County, 227 AD2d 245.) Under POL under FOIL is § 87 ( 2) ( e) ( i), disclosure of law enforcement records not judicial proceeding. warranted where Disclosure is it could interfere limited in Federal with a habeas proceedings, and granting petitioner's FOIL request would allow him to do an end run around those limitations. 4 (Legal Aid Society v [* 6] New York City Police Dep't, 274 AD2d 207.) Accordingly, upon renewal this court grants respondents' respondents' motion to motion to dismiss the petition. CONCLUSION For granted the and reasons upon stated, renewal, petition is granted. respondents' motion. to renew dismiss the It is accordingly ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that this proceeding is dismissed. This constitutes the decision and judgment of the court. Date: is October 16, 2013 AJSC UNFILED JUDGMEN This Judgment has not b I and notice of entry cann~~7:ntered by_ the County Clerk obtain entry counsel appear in ~rson at s~rved based hereon. T 0 tho; JaUduthonzed representative must 1'f\Q). 5 gment Clerk's Desk (Room

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.