6 New York opinions name it 5 courts 2016–2025 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New York courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Cleghorne v. City of New Yorkgreen2 sentences2021The court noted that "[f]ailing to examine the merits of [p]laintiff's claim here risks perpetuating the faults of a system which already failed him once." However[*2], the court found that it was nonetheless "constrained by precedent to find that [p]laintiff's failure to name the Detectives in the Notice of Claim merits dismissal against them." Indeed, our prior decisions do hold that, as a prerequisite to suing individual municipal employee defendants pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e, employee defendants must be named in a notice of claim ( see Alvarez v City of New York , 134 AD3d 5 2021The court noted that "[f]ailing to examine the merits of [p]laintiff's claim here risks perpetuating the faults of a system which already failed him once." However[*2], the court found that it was nonetheless "constrained by precedent to find that [p]laintiff's failure to name the Detectives in the Notice of Claim merits dismissal against them." Indeed, our prior decisions do hold that, as a prerequisite to suing individual municipal employee defendants pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e, employee defendants must be named in a notice of claim ( see Alvarez v City of New York , 134 AD3d 5 | 2 | 2 |
Alvarez v. City of New Yorkgreen2 sentences2021The court noted that "[f]ailing to examine the merits of [p]laintiff's claim here risks perpetuating the faults of a system which already failed him once." However[*2], the court found that it was nonetheless "constrained by precedent to find that [p]laintiff's failure to name the Detectives in the Notice of Claim merits dismissal against them." Indeed, our prior decisions do hold that, as a prerequisite to suing individual municipal employee defendants pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e, employee defendants must be named in a notice of claim ( see Alvarez v City of New York , 134 AD3d 5 2021The court noted that "[f]ailing to examine the merits of [p]laintiff's claim here risks perpetuating the faults of a system which already failed him once." However[*2], the court found that it was nonetheless "constrained by precedent to find that [p]laintiff's failure to name the Detectives in the Notice of Claim merits dismissal against them." Indeed, our prior decisions do hold that, as a prerequisite to suing individual municipal employee defendants pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e, employee defendants must be named in a notice of claim ( see Alvarez v City of New York , 134 AD3d 5 | 2 | 2 |
Sharp v. Cahngreen2 sentences2021The court noted that "[f]ailing to examine the merits of [p]laintiff's claim here risks perpetuating the faults of a system which already failed him once." However[*2], the court found that it was nonetheless "constrained by precedent to find that [p]laintiff's failure to name the Detectives in the Notice of Claim merits dismissal against them." Indeed, our prior decisions do hold that, as a prerequisite to suing individual municipal employee defendants pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e, employee defendants must be named in a notice of claim ( see Alvarez v City of New York , 134 AD3d 5 2021The court noted that "[f]ailing to examine the merits of [p]laintiff's claim here risks perpetuating the faults of a system which already failed him once." However[*2], the court found that it was nonetheless "constrained by precedent to find that [p]laintiff's failure to name the Detectives in the Notice of Claim merits dismissal against them." Indeed, our prior decisions do hold that, as a prerequisite to suing individual municipal employee defendants pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e, employee defendants must be named in a notice of claim ( see Alvarez v City of New York , 134 AD3d 5 | 2 | 2 |
Matter of Carpenter v. New York City Hous. Auth.green1 sentence2025Admin., 195 AD3d 417 , 417 [1st Dept 2021]) and the NYPD is no exception (Carpenter v NYCHA, 146 A.D.3d 674, 44 [1st Dept 2017]; Hunold v NYC, 2024 WL 4140057 . *6-7 [Sup Ct, NY Co 2024]). | 1 | 1 |
Friedman v. Ricegreen1 sentence2018We have previously{**32 NY3d at 583} rejected such requests for blanket exemptions, as they are antithetical to FOIL's interest in open government ( see Gould , 89 NY2d at 275 ; see Friedman , 30 NY3d at 477 ). | 1 | 1 |
Floyd v. City of New Yorkgreen1 sentence2016In August 2013, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Scheindlin, J.) found, after a bench trial, that the NYPD was liable for Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment violations insofar as its “practice of making stops that lack individualized reasonable suspicion ha[d] been so pervasive and persistent as to become not only a part of the NYPD’s standard operating procedure, but a fact of daily life in some New York City neighborhoods.” (Floyd v City of New York, 959 F Supp 2d 540, 660 [SD NY 2013].) The court further found that the NYPD had “violated bedrock principle | 1 | 1 |
Floyd v. City of New Yorkgreen1 sentence2016(See Floyd v City of New York, 959 F Supp 2d 668, 684-686 [SD NY 2013].) The court found that BWCs were “uniquely suited to addressing the constitutional harms at issue in [that] case.” (Id. at 685.) Specifically, the court found that the recordings taken would, among other things, “alleviate some of the mistrust that ha[d] developed between the police and the black and Hispanic communities, based on the belief that stops and frisks are overwhelmingly and unjustifiably directed at members of these communities.” (Id.) The court-ordered program is set to expand to encompass the use of 1,000 BWCs | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Abdur-Rashid v. New York City Police Department
green
2 sentences2018In Abdur-Rashid, Supreme Court granted the NYPD's motion to dismiss and denied the petition, reasoning that the NYPD demonstrated that its response-including its refusal to acknowledge whether responsive records existed-was not prohibited by FOIL as the records sought were exempt from disclosure under the statute and the cases interpreting it ( 45 Misc.3d 888 , 992 N.Y.S.2d 870 [Sup. Ct., NY County 2014] ). 2018In Abdur-Rashid, Supreme Court granted the NYPD's motion to dismiss and denied the petition, reasoning that the NYPD demonstrated that its response-including its refusal to acknowledge whether responsive records existed-was not prohibited by FOIL as the records sought were exempt from disclosure under the statute and the cases interpreting it ( 45 Misc.3d 888 , 992 N.Y.S.2d 870 [Sup. Ct., NY County 2014] ). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Hashmi v. New York City Police Department
green
2 sentences2018In Hashmi, although not disputing that the content of responsive records may be exempt, Supreme Court, among other things, denied the motion to dismiss on the rationale that the NYPD's failure to acknowledge whether or not responsive records existed was impermissible under FOIL ( 46 Misc.3d 712 , N.Y.S.2d 596 [Sup. Ct., NY County 2014] ). 2018Abdur-Rashid in relation to his activities as Imam of the Mosque of Islamic Brotherhood." In addition, in Hashmi, it is ambiguous whether Supreme Court found nothing in "Mayor de Blasio's well-publicized decision to disband the NYPD unit that had conducted the surveillance" that undermined the agency's ability to deny the existence of records or erroneously concluded, as the prior sentence of its opinion suggests, that the mayor was not the kind of senior executive branch official whose statements are "sufficient to effect waiver of a Glomar response" ( Hashmi, 46 Misc.3d at 723 , 998 N.Y.S.2d | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Nathan Gardels v. Central Intelligence Agency
green
1 sentence2018As the federal courts have recognized ( see generally Gardels, 689 F.2d 1100 ), a Glomar-type response would be ineffective if it were permissible only when the agency possesses responsive records, even though that is the situation when it is most evident that revealing the existence of the records would damage a pending investigation. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Matter of New York Civ. Liberties Union v. New York City Police Dept.
green
2 sentences2018We have previously{**32 NY3d at 583} rejected such requests for blanket exemptions, as they are antithetical to FOIL's interest in open government ( see Gould , 89 NY2d at 275 ; see Friedman , 30 NY3d at 477 ). 2018The majority rejects the NYCLU and NYPD's claim that redaction of Civil Rights Law § 50-a records is permissible, {**32 NY3d at 585}concluding that redaction "would eviscerate the legislature's mandate" because, under the majority's view, Civil Rights Law § 50-a provides the only legal process by which a court may order disclosure of personnel records (majority op at 567). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Gould v. New York City Police Department
green
1 sentence2018We have previously{**32 NY3d at 583} rejected such requests for blanket exemptions, as they are antithetical to FOIL's interest in open government ( see Gould , 89 NY2d at 275 ; see Friedman , 30 NY3d at 477 ). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.