Brighton Police Patrolman Assn. v Catholdi

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Brighton Police Patrolman Assn. v Catholdi 2021 NY Slip Op 32978(U) April 16, 2021 Supreme Court, Monroe County Docket Number: Index No.I2020002814 Judge: Ann Marie Taddeo Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [*FILED: 1]202104160956 MONROE COUNTY CLERK 04/16/2021 02:11 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 21 IndexNO. # : I2020002814 INDEX I2020002814 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/16/2021 STATE OF NEW YORK SUPREME COURT: COUNTY OF MONROE BRIGHTON POLICE PATROLMAN ASSOCIATION, INVESTIGATOR STEPHEN HUNT TOWN OF BRIGHTON POLICE OFFICER, Petitioners, DECISION AND ORDER IndexNo.I2020002814 vs. BRIGHTON POLICE CHIEF DAVID CATHOLDI, BRIGHTON TOWN SUPERVISOR WILLIAM MOEHLE, THE TOWN OF BRIGHTON, BRIGHTON TOWN CLERK DANIEL AMAN, BRIGHTON POLICE DEPARTMENT RECORDS DEPARTMENT, Respondents. Hon. Ann Marie Taddeo, J.S.C. Petitioner having commenced this proceeding by filing a Notice of Petition and Verified Petition, dated January 20, 2021, seeking an Orde1· and Judgment pursuant to CPLR §7806 prohibiting Respondents from 1·eleasing police disciplinary records prior to the repeal of Civil Rights Law §50-a, in addition to other requested relief; And the Court having read and considered the Notice of Petition and Verified Petition of the Petitioner, Brighton Police Association, et al, dated January 20, 2021, with exhibits thereto, and the Verified Answer of Respondents, Brighton Police Chief, David Catholdi, et al, dated February 12, 2021; and the parties having appeared before the Court for Oral_Argument on April 12, 2021; the Court renders the following Decision: 2 of 6 [*FILED: 2]202104160956 MONROE COUNTY CLERK 04/16/2021 02:11 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 21 IndexNO. #: I2020002814 INDEX I2020002814 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/16/2021 Petitioner Brighton Police Patrolman Association ("Union") is a labor union incorporated and existing under the laws of the State of New York, which represents many Brighton Police Officers. Petitioner Stephen Hunt (Hunt) is an Investigator with the Town of Brighton Police Department and a member of the Brighton Police Patrolman Association. Prior to June 12, 2020, New York Civil Rights Law (CRL) §50-a provided, in relevant part, that [a]ll personnel records ... unde1· the conti·ol of any police agency ... shall be considered confidential and not subject to inspection or review without the express written consent of such police officer ... except as may be mandated by lawful court order. On June 12, 2020, §50-a was repealed and replaced with amendments to Public Officers Law (POL) sections 86, 87 and 89, which held that the above disciplinary records are now subject to disclosm·e. On or about December 29, 2020, a New York Frnedom of Information Law (FOIL) request was made to the Respondent Brighton Police Department (BPD) seeking personnel and disciplinary records for Petitioner Investigator Hunt (Hunt) and every other officer in the BPD from the date of the FOIL request back to the date when each officer was hired. BPD informed their officers that, pursuant to the new sections of the POL, all disciplinary records, including those dated before June 12, 2020, would 3 of 6 [*FILED: 3]202104160956 MONROE COUNTY CLERK 04/16/2021 02:11 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 21 IndexNO. #: I2020002814 INDEX I2020002814 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/16/2021 be released notwithstan ding the respective officers' accrued rights to privacy and confidential ity delineated in the respective settlement agreements they made with the BPD. On or about December 31, 2020, Petitioners brought the instant CPLR Article 78 action seeking a declaratory judgment that such a release of records would be violative of the Town's current Collective Bargaining Agreement (CEA) with the Union, and that any such releases would also be a violation of the affected officers' accrued rights pursuant to past settlement agreements entered into before June 12, 2020. The Court holds that the repeal of§ 50-a should not be given retroactive effect. New York State General Constructio n Law (GCL) § 93 states, [t]he repeal of a statute or part thereof shall not affect or impair any act done, offense committed or right accruing, accrued or acquired, or liability, penalty, forfeiture or punishment incurred prior to the time such repeal takes effect, but the same may be enjoyed, asserted, enforced, prosecuted or inflicted, as fully and to the same extent as if such repeal had not been effected, It is well established that "in the absence of evidence of contrary intent such legislation is not to be given retroactive effect" and that to rule otherwise "would deprive persons of substantial rights." People v Roper, 259 NY 635 (1932). The recent 4 of 6 [*FILED: 4]202104160956 MONROE COUNTY CLERK 04/16/2021 02:11 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 21 IndexNO. #: I2020002814 INDEX I2020002814 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/16/2021 legislation which repealed § 50-a contained no language to suggest that either the Legislature or the Governor intended such repeal to be applied retroactively. "[R]etroactive application is not permitted ... [where] applying the statutes and amendments retroactively would infringe on existing, recognized rights." Charbonneau v State of New Yorh, 178 AD2d 815 (3d Dept. 1991). "Except where the Constitution prohibits it, the Legislature is free to enact laws that have retroactive application. [The Court has] long 1·ecognized that the General Construction Law places no restraint on the Legislature beyond the restrictions in the Constitution." Kellogg v. Travis, 100 NY2d 407, 411 (2003). In Kellogg, the Cmu·t found "undisputably clear language of the statute" that the Legislature intended the relevant act to apply retroactively. This Court can find no similar "undisputably clear language" in the repeal of § 50-a. Petitioners also established that officers represented by the Union have, over time, entered into settlement agreements with BPD, and have relied on a condition that such settlements would remain confidential. Thus, to now allow for retroactive disclosure of the details of these same settlements would be to deprive these officers of their contractual or accrued rights. 11 [T]he legislature is not free to impair vested or property rights. The vested rights doctrine recognizes that a judgment after it becomes final, may not be affected by subsequent legislation ... [U]nder this doctrine, a judgment becomes an inviolable property right, which thereafter may not constitutionally be abridged by subsequent legislation." Hodes v. Axelrod, 70 NY2d 364 (1987). 5 of 6 [*FILED: 5]202104160956 MONROE COUNTY CLERK 04/16/2021 02:11 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 21 IndexNO. #: I2020002814 INDEX I2020002814 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/16/2021 The Court also finds, and Respondents concede, that under the terms of the CBA, details of any unfounded complaints cannot be released by the Town or BPD. According to the CBA, Article 7, paragraph 4, "[a]fter investigation, no reference or record of a citizen complaint that proves unfounded shall be entered into the employee's personnel folder ... " Accordingly, it is ORDERED, that the language of New York General Construction Law§ 93, which states that the repeal of part of a statute does not affect any act accruing prior to the time of such repeal, applies to the repeal of Civil Rights Law §50-a; it is further ORDERED, that, based on the above, the repeal of Civil Rights Law §50-a is not to be applied retroactively; it is further ORDERED, the repeal of Civil Rights Law§ 50-a does not provide for the release of records related to unsubstantiated claims; it is further ORDERED, that a Permanent Injunction is hereby issued prohibiting the Respondents from releasing any employment or disciplinary 1·ecords created prior to June 12, 2020 except as may be mandated by lawful court mder. Dated: April 16, 2021 ENTER: 6 of 6

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.