Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
The CITY OF NEW YORK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. THREE GOOD FELLOWS INC., et al., Defendants-Respondents.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marilyn Shafer, J.), entered May 20, 2003, which denied plaintiff's motion to allow its undercover witnesses to testify in a manner that would prevent the revelation of their identities, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs, the motion granted, and the matter remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.
In this in rem nuisance abatement action, plaintiff City of New York alleges that the subject night club is the scene of ongoing and pervasive illegal narcotics activity. The City, intending to prove the existence of such activity through the testimony of active undercover police officers, moved to allow the witnesses to testify in a manner that would preserve their anonymity. The City suggested that this goal could be achieved without closing the courtroom if the witnesses were permitted to testify while sitting behind a screen, while wearing a disguise, or while facing away from the courtroom audience. Supreme Court denied the motion.
We reverse. The City's submissions establish the existence of reasonable concern for the safety and continued effectiveness of the officers in the event their identities are exposed as a result of their testimony in this action. In this regard, we note that the officers continue to conduct undercover operations in the vicinity of the subject night club, and that the club's popularity (reportedly 4,000 patrons nightly) suggests that the proceedings may receive significant public attention. Moreover, defendants have not demonstrated any legitimate countervailing interest in disclosure of the witnesses' identities. Accordingly, on remand, the court is directed to determine what narrowly tailored measures, short of closing the courtroom, will be employed to permit the undercover witnesses to testify without revealing their identities (see People v. Sanabria, 301 A.D.2d 307, 308, 750 N.Y.S.2d 604, lv. denied 99 N.Y.2d 632, 760 N.Y.S.2d 114, 790 N.E.2d 288).
Thank you for your feedback!
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.
Decided: March 11, 2004
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)