executive immunity in New York

1977(Gaynor v Rockefeller, 21 AD2d 92, 98 , affd 15 NY2d 120 .) While this executive immunity or privilege is not absolute (see United States v Nixon, 418 US 683 , where executive privilege was limited in a situation where the executive himself was the subject of investigation.) "The privilege is not a badge or emolument of exalted office, but an expression of a policy designed to aid in the effective functioning of government.” (Barr v Matteo, 360 US 564, 572-573 .) Petitioner’s desires for information or admissions by her opponent must give way to the more fundamental requirements of public poli

1976Their assertion of privilege is wholly based upon conclusory use of the terms "executive privilege” and "attorneys’ work product.” Executive privilege, as the term is generally employed, relates to matters of national security and foreign policy (see United States v Nixon, 418 US 683 ; US Code, tit 5, § 552, subd [b], par [1], cl [A]), and the report of an independent investigation is not an attorney’s work product subject to privilege (Montgomery Ward Co. v City of Lockport, 44 Misc 2d 923 ; see, also, Matter of Winston v Mangan, 72 Misc 2d 280 ).

1987(United States v Morgan, 313 US 409 [1941].) Executive privilege protects the decision-making and judgmental processes of administrators empowered to render decisions from revealing the mental or deliberative considerations which entered into such decisions.

1977(Gaynor v Rockefeller, 21 AD2d 92, 98 , affd 15 NY2d 120 .) While this executive immunity or privilege is not absolute (see United States v Nixon, 418 US 683 , where executive privilege was limited in a situation where the executive himself was the subject of investigation.) "The privilege is not a badge or emolument of exalted office, but an expression of a policy designed to aid in the effective functioning of government.” (Barr v Matteo, 360 US 564, 572-573 .) Petitioner’s desires for information or admissions by her opponent must give way to the more fundamental requirements of public poli

1977(Gaynor v Rockefeller, 21 AD2d 92, 98 , affd 15 NY2d 120 .) While this executive immunity or privilege is not absolute (see United States v Nixon, 418 US 683 , where executive privilege was limited in a situation where the executive himself was the subject of investigation.) "The privilege is not a badge or emolument of exalted office, but an expression of a policy designed to aid in the effective functioning of government.” (Barr v Matteo, 360 US 564, 572-573 .) Petitioner’s desires for information or admissions by her opponent must give way to the more fundamental requirements of public poli

1977(Gaynor v Rockefeller, 21 AD2d 92, 98 , affd 15 NY2d 120 .) While this executive immunity or privilege is not absolute (see United States v Nixon, 418 US 683 , where executive privilege was limited in a situation where the executive himself was the subject of investigation.) "The privilege is not a badge or emolument of exalted office, but an expression of a policy designed to aid in the effective functioning of government.” (Barr v Matteo, 360 US 564, 572-573 .) Petitioner’s desires for information or admissions by her opponent must give way to the more fundamental requirements of public poli

1976"The record, therefore, does not support the respondents’ claim of privilege” (Zuckerman v New York State Bd. of Parole, 53 AD2d 405, 409 , supra).

1976Their assertion of privilege is wholly based upon conclusory use of the terms "executive privilege” and "attorneys’ work product.” Executive privilege, as the term is generally employed, relates to matters of national security and foreign policy (see United States v Nixon, 418 US 683 ; US Code, tit 5, § 552, subd [b], par [1], cl [A]), and the report of an independent investigation is not an attorney’s work product subject to privilege (Montgomery Ward Co. v City of Lockport, 44 Misc 2d 923 ; see, also, Matter of Winston v Mangan, 72 Misc 2d 280 ).

1976(Lombardo v Stoke, 18 NY2d 394, 400 ; Cheatum v Wehle, 5 NY2d 585, 592, 593 ; see, also, Spalding v Vilas, 161 US 483 .) This executive immunity is based on policy considerations which posit that efficient government requires officials who are not subject (unjustly or otherwise) to the distracting inconveniences of civil litigation arising from the performance of their official duties.

1959On the contrary, we have previously held a communication, released generally to the press, within this executive privilege.” The .Supreme Court of Pennsylvania held to similar effect in Matson v. Margiotti ( 371 Pa. 188 [1952]) where the State Attorney General had written a letter to a District Attorney advising bim that one of his assistants had communist affiliations, which was released to the press.