public interest privilege in New York

2003Bombing Litig., 93 NY2d 1, 8 [1999].) Specifically, the public interest privilege “attaches to ‘confidential communications between public officers, and to public officers, in the performance of their duties, where the public interest requires that such confidential communications or the sources should not be divulged’.” (Cirale v 80 Pine St.

1999This matter is before us on remand from the Court of Appeals ( 93 NY2d 1 ), which determined that defendant Port Authority was not precluded from invoking the public interest privilege in its capacity as owner and landlord of the World Trade Center and reversed an order of this Court ( 248 AD2d 137 ), which had held the privilege inapplicable to Port Authority acting in that capacity 'and had therefore vacated an order of protection shielding from discovery certain security-related materials pursuant to the privilege.

1981Corp., 35 NY2d 113, 118 , supra.) Viewed in the context of the public interest privilege, plaintiff’s request for disclosure of the criminal investigation file lacks merit.

1980Corp., 35 NY2d 113, 117-118 , supra.) In several cases, the public interest privilege described above has been held to apply to the Department of Investigation.

1980(See, e.g., Matter of Langert v Tenney, 5 AD2d 586 , opp dsmd 5 NY2d 875 ; Matter of Cherkis v Impellitteri, 307 NY 132 ; Blaikie v Borden Co., 47 Misc 2d 180 .) As Judge Breitel stated in Langert v Tenney (supra, pp 588-589): "[TJhere is a public interest privilege, covering confidential communications, available to certain public officers in the executive branch in certain contexts.

1980(See, e.g., Matter of Langert v Tenney, 5 AD2d 586 , opp dsmd 5 NY2d 875 ; Matter of Cherkis v Impellitteri, 307 NY 132 ; Blaikie v Borden Co., 47 Misc 2d 180 .) As Judge Breitel stated in Langert v Tenney (supra, pp 588-589): "[TJhere is a public interest privilege, covering confidential communications, available to certain public officers in the executive branch in certain contexts.

2015Moreover, the video footage falls within the public interest exception to Civil Rights Law §§ 50 and 51 (see Messenger v Gruner + Jahr Print. & Publ., 94 NY2d 436, 441 [2000]; Freihofer v Hearst Corp., 65 NY2d 135 , 141 [1985]; Walter v NBC Tel.

2011Moreover, the flyer falls within the public interest exception to Civil Rights Law §§ 50 and 51 (see Messenger v Gruner + Jahr Print. & Publ., 94 NY2d 436, 441 [2000]; Freihofer v Hearst Corp., 65 NY2d 135 , 141 [1985]; Walter v NBC Tel.

2015Network, Inc., 27 AD3d 1069, 1070-1071 [2006]).

2011Network, Inc., 27 AD3d 1069, 1070-1071 [2006]; Creel v Crown Publs., 115 AD2d 414, 415-416 [1985]).

1981The nature of the public interest privilege was explained in People v Keating ( 286 App Div 150, 152-153 ) as follows: “In addition to the statutory, there is quite another kind of privilege recognized in the courts.

1973In People v. Keating ( 286 App. Div. 150, 152-153 [1st Dept., 1965]), the nature of the public interest privilege was described by Justice Bbeitel as follows: “ In addition to the statutory, there is quite another kind of privilege recognized in the courts.

2018Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, the action does not fall within the public interest exception to the notice of claim requirement, since the complaint seeks to vindicate the private rights of the plaintiff, and the disposition of the claim will not directly affect or vindicate the rights of others ( see 423 S. Salina St. v Syracuse, 68 NY2d at 493 ; Mills v County of Monroe, 59 NY2d 307, 312 ; Sager v County of Sullivan, 145 AD3d 1175, 1177 ).

2017Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the action does not fall within the public interest exception to the notice of claim requirement, since the complaint seeks to vindicate the private rights of the plaintiff, and the disposition of the claim will not directly affect or vindicate the rights of others (see 423 S. Salina St. v City of Syracuse, 68 NY2d at 493 ; Mills v County of Monroe, 59 NY2d 307, 312 [1983]; Sager v County of Sullivan, 145 AD3d 1175, 1177 [2016]).

2014Although, as the Supreme Court noted, the County failed to produce the subject documents in order to substantiate its claim that their disclosure would harm the public interest by revealing the County’s deliberative process, thereby chilling future candid evaluations of governmental decisions (cf. Martin A. v Gross, 194 AD2d 195 [1993]), under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiff’s motion to compel the disclosure of those documents without first requiring their production and reviewing them, in camera, so that the Co

2014Although, as the Supreme Court noted, the County failed to produce the subject documents in order to substantiate its claim that their disclosure would harm the public interest by revealing the County’s deliberative process, thereby chilling future candid evaluations of governmental decisions (cf. Martin A. v Gross, 194 AD2d 195 [1993]), under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiff’s motion to compel the disclosure of those documents without first requiring their production and reviewing them, in camera, so that the Co

2018Further, although the complaint named the individual defendants in their individual capacities, it alleged retaliation by them as part of their employment, and, thus, the notice of claim requirement applied ( see Miller v City of New York, 89 AD3d 612 ; Hale v Scopac, 74 AD3d 1906, 1907 ; Tesciuba v Koch, 215 AD2d 222 ; Matter of Rattner v Planning Commn. of Vil. of Pleasantville, 156 AD2d 521, 526 ).

2017Further, although the complaint named the individual defendants in their individual capacities, it alleged retaliation by them as part of their employment, and thus, the notice of claim requirement applied (see Miller v City of New York, 89 AD3d 612 [2011]; Hale v Scopac, 74 AD3d 1906, 1907 [2010]; Tesciuba v Koch, 215 AD2d 222 [1995]; Matter of Rattner v Planning Commn. of Vil. of Pleasantville, 156 AD2d 521, 526 [1989]).

2018Further, although the complaint named the individual defendants in their individual capacities, it alleged retaliation by them as part of their employment, and, thus, the notice of claim requirement applied ( see Miller v City of New York, 89 AD3d 612 ; Hale v Scopac, 74 AD3d 1906, 1907 ; Tesciuba v Koch, 215 AD2d 222 ; Matter of Rattner v Planning Commn. of Vil. of Pleasantville, 156 AD2d 521, 526 ).

2017Further, although the complaint named the individual defendants in their individual capacities, it alleged retaliation by them as part of their employment, and thus, the notice of claim requirement applied (see Miller v City of New York, 89 AD3d 612 [2011]; Hale v Scopac, 74 AD3d 1906, 1907 [2010]; Tesciuba v Koch, 215 AD2d 222 [1995]; Matter of Rattner v Planning Commn. of Vil. of Pleasantville, 156 AD2d 521, 526 [1989]).

2018Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, the action does not fall within the public interest exception to the notice of claim requirement, since the complaint seeks to vindicate the private rights of the plaintiff, and the disposition of the claim will not directly affect or vindicate the rights of others ( see 423 S. Salina St. v Syracuse, 68 NY2d at 493 ; Mills v County of Monroe, 59 NY2d 307, 312 ; Sager v County of Sullivan, 145 AD3d 1175, 1177 ).

2017Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the action does not fall within the public interest exception to the notice of claim requirement, since the complaint seeks to vindicate the private rights of the plaintiff, and the disposition of the claim will not directly affect or vindicate the rights of others (see 423 S. Salina St. v City of Syracuse, 68 NY2d at 493 ; Mills v County of Monroe, 59 NY2d 307, 312 [1983]; Sager v County of Sullivan, 145 AD3d 1175, 1177 [2016]).

2011Bombing Litig., 248 AD2d 137, 137-138 [1st Dept 1998]).

1999This matter is before us on remand from the Court of Appeals ( 93 NY2d 1 ), which determined that defendant Port Authority was not precluded from invoking the public interest privilege in its capacity as owner and landlord of the World Trade Center and reversed an order of this Court ( 248 AD2d 137 ), which had held the privilege inapplicable to Port Authority acting in that capacity 'and had therefore vacated an order of protection shielding from discovery certain security-related materials pursuant to the privilege.

2004Although petitioner has not shown “ ‘a compelling and particularized need for access’ ” (Sanchez, 201 AD2d at 326 , quoting Matter of District Attorney of Suffolk County, 58 NY2d 436, 444 [1983]), he has shown that many of the documents sought had been provided to his trial counsel, who claims that he no longer possesses them (see Kassebaum, 270 AD2d 71 [2000]; Matter of Huston v Turkel, 236 AD2d 283 [1997], lv denied 90 NY2d 809 [1997]).

1997State ments made by a witness to the District Attorney’s office are protected by the public interest privilege, and their disclosure cannot be directed absent a showing, not made here, of a " 'compelling and particularized need for access.’ ” (Sanchez v City of New York, 201 AD2d 325, 326 , quoting Matter of District Attorney of Suffolk County, 58 NY2d 436, 444 ).

1981The court stressed that it recognized the existence of two competing public interests: “On the one hand there is the public interest in the Grand Jury’s exercise of its constitutional power to obtain all relevant evidence for the purpose of holding those responsible for their criminal acts and, on the other hand, there is the public interest in the performance of the duties of the [commission]” (Fischer v Citizens Committee, supra, p 601).

1977That material is protected from disclosure by the public interest privilege (Fischer v Citizens Committee, 72 Misc 2d 595 , affd without opn 42 AD2d 692 ).

2021Bombing Litig. , 93 NY2d 1, 8 [internal quotation marks omitted]; Ren Zheng Zheng v Bermeo , 114 AD3d 743, 744 [internal quotation marks omitted]).

2011Network, Inc., 27 AD3d 1069, 1070-1071 [2006]; Creel v Crown Publs., 115 AD2d 414, 415-416 [1985]).

2011(See Matter of Sheehan v Arnbach, 136 AD2d 25, 28 [3d Dept 1988] [holding that licensed physical therapists do not have a cognizable interest in challenging the guidelines governing the practice of occupational therapists, because protection from the economic impact of competition was not within the purview of the Department of Education laws and regulations].) Standing under the “Public Interest” Doctrine Reisner also argues that he has standing under the public interest doctrine, as described in Matter of Hebei v West ( 25 AD3d 172 [3d Dept 2005]).