Matter of New York City Civilian Complaint Review Bd. v Office of the Comptroller of the City of N.Y.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Matter of New York City Civilian Complaint Review Bd. v Office of the Comptroller of the City of N.Y. 2017 NY Slip Op 32444(U) November 22, 2017 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 452927/2015 Judge: James E. d'Auguste 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. [*FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/22/2017 04:22 PM 1] NYSCEF DOC. NO. 71 INDEX NO. 452927/2015 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/22/2017 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------------------------------)( In the Matter of the Application of The New York City Civilian Complaint Review Board, Petitioner, DECISION/ORDER Index No. 45292712015 -againstThe Office of the Comptroller of the City of New York, Respondent. ---------------------------------------------------------------------)( Hon. James E. d' Auguste Pursuant to this Court's decision and order dated March 24, 2016, this Court has conducted an in camera review of the two General Municipal Law ("GML") Section 50-h hearing transcripts submitted by respondent The Office of the Comptroller of the City of New York ("Gomptroller!s·Office'l.):- Upon review-of.the-transcripts, the Court finds that .the __ _ transcripts do not contain any material or relevant information that would have assisted in the litigation of the within action. Based upon the foregoing, the Comptroller's Office is not under any obligation to produce the two GML Section 50-h hearing transcripts to petitioner The New York City Civilian Complaint Review Board. Any aggrieved party may seek appellate review, if --.--::- warranted. This constitutes the decision and order of this Court. Dated: November 22, 2017 1 of 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.
