IN RE: Application of Scott FAPPIANO (1999)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

IN RE: Application of Scott FAPPIANO, Petitioner-Respondent, For a Judgment, etc., v. NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, Respondent-Appellant.

Decided: December 21, 1999

SULLIVAN, J.P., ROSENBERGER, NARDELLI, WILLIAMS and FRIEDMAN, JJ.

Petitioner-Respondent, Pro Se. Timothy J. O'Shaugnessy, for Respondent-Appellant.

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Beverly Cohen, J.), entered on July 9, 1998, which granted petitioner's FOIL application challenging respondent Police Department's denial of access to records pertaining to his arrest and conviction, and directed respondent to deliver the records to petitioner, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondent argues that the records are exempt from disclosure under Civil Rights Law § 50-b(1) because they identify the victim of a sex offense, and that because petitioner stands convicted of the sex offense on which he was charged, he does not qualify as person “charged” with a sex offense entitled to such records under Civil Rights Law § 50-b(2)(a). We disagree. First, petitioner, who claims to need the documents for purposes of planned proceedings in Federal court to overturn the conviction, is situated much like a person who is charged with a crime and seeks documents for purposes of mounting a defense. Second, the prohibition of Civil Rights Law § 50-b(1) against “public inspection”, is inapplicable here; petitioner already knows the victim's name.

MEMORANDUM DECISION.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network