Archive for January, 2017

CONGRATULATIONS TO ASSEMBLYWOMAN MALLIOTAKIS:NAMED STATE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL FOUNDATION FOR WOMEN LEGISLATORS

This just released.. Let’s give her a hand

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

January 31, 2017

MALLIOTAKIS NAMED STATE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL FOUNDATION FOR WOMEN LEGISLATORS

Assemblywoman Nicole Malliotakis (R,C,I-Brooklyn/Staten Island) has been named New York State Director of the National Foundation for Women Legislators (NFWL). The NFWL aims to empower and inspire elected women to become thought leaders who shape America’s future by providing strategic resources to elected women for leadership development, an exchange of diverse legislative ideas, and effective governance through conferences, state outreach, educational materials, professional and personal relationships and networking. As a State Director, Malliotakis will serve as a point of contact for elected women in New York, and work to bring more elected women the opportunities and resources that NFWL has to offer.

“I want to thank NFWL for selecting me to coordinate their efforts in the State of New York. I am honored to serve my colleagues as State Director and will do my best to grow this remarkable organization that has empowered many women to step in to elected positions across the country. I look forward to helping one our nation’s oldest non-partisan organization and identifying and addressing the needs of elected women at all levels of government,” said Malliotakis.

“We are so proud Assemblywoman Nicole Malliotakis has accepted a leadership position in our Foundation,” stated Minnesota State Senator Carrie Ruud, NFWL’s 2017 Chair. “NFWL’s theme for 2017 is leadership, and Nicole exemplifies this theme. She will play a key role in aiding women legislators in New York, as we continue to grow as an organization.”

Malliotakis begins serving in her new position immediately, and will hold this office through the end of 2017.

###

Assemblywoman Malliotakis calls out NYC to Comply with Executive Order on Sanctuary Cities

Malliotakis: NYC Must End ‘Sanctuary City’ Policy that Harbors Criminals

Assemblywoman Nicole Malliotakis (R,C,I-Brooklyn, Staten Island) is calling on the City of New York to comply with President Donald Trump’s recently announced Executive Order: Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States.

According to the NYPD’s Summary of Statistics on U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Detainers from October 1, 2015 to September 30, 2016, the Department received 80 civil immigration detainers for undocumented individuals considered a threat to public safety.  Only 2 detainers were honored and 78 were denied.

Section 9 (a) of President Trump’s executive order states: “In furtherance of this policy, the Attorney General and the Secretary, in their discretion and to the extent consistent with law, shall ensure that jurisdictions that willfully refuse to comply with 8 U.S.C. 1373 (sanctuary jurisdictions) are not eligible to receive Federal grants, except as deemed necessary for law enforcement purposes by the Attorney General or the Secretary.  The Secretary has the authority to designate, in his discretion and to the extent consistent with law, a jurisdiction as a sanctuary jurisdiction.  The Attorney General shall take appropriate enforcement action against any entity that violates 8 U.S.C. 1373, or which has in effect a statute, policy, or practice that prevents or hinders the enforcement of Federal law.”

Subsection (b) continues: “To better inform the public regarding the public safety threats associated with sanctuary jurisdictions, the Secretary shall utilize the Declined Detainer Outcome Report or its equivalent and, on a weekly basis, make public a comprehensive list of criminal actions committed by aliens and any jurisdiction that ignored or otherwise failed to honor any detainers with respect to such aliens.”

In 2014 the New York City Council enacted two resolutions, Local Law No. 58 and Local Law No. 59, to significantly impede cooperation between the New York City Department of Correction (DOC), NYPD, and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), by prohibiting DOC and NYPD from honoring immigration detainers unless accompanied by a federal warrant and the person:

(1) Has either been convicted of a violent or serious crime, or

(2) Is identified as a possible match on in the terrorist screening database. (N.Y.C. Admin. Code §§ 9-131, 14-154).

Crimes not considered “violent or serious” include Grand Larceny in the First Degree, Aggravated Identity Theft, Criminal Diversion of Prescription Medications and Prescriptions in the First Degree, Sexual Abuse in the Second Degree, and Aggravated Patronizing a Minor for Prostitution in the First Degree, among others.

During the Administration of President Barack Obama, ICE agents were advised to issue a detainer only where the individual was suspected of posing a danger to national security, affiliated with an organized criminal gang, convicted of a felony unrelated to immigration status, convicted of an aggravated felony, convicted of three or more misdemeanors unrelated to immigration status or minor traffic offenses, or convicted of a misdemeanor related to a sex offense, burglary, firearms, drugs, driving under the influence, or any offense requiring 90 days or more in police custody.

“Under the Obama Administration, the Department of Homeland Security already limited the issuance of civil detainers to situations where the individual is considered dangerous or has already been convicted of breaking the law. Despite these restrictive criteria, from October 2014 to October 2015 the City of New York honored only 6% of civil detainer requests from federal authorities.  Over the subsequent year, that rate has fallen to just 2.5%,” said Assemblywoman Malliotakis.  “It’s truly frightening that our City refuses to treat criminals in accordance with federal law, and would jeopardize federal funding by harboring individuals who have committed crimes from deportation.  It is time to restore New York City to a law-and-order city.”

Thank you,

Nicole Malliotakis

Brooklyn Conservatives File Amicus Brief Supporting Assemblymembers Castorina and Malliotakis’ action to Stop NYC from Destroying IDNYC Data

Our Amicus Brief in support of Assemblymembers Ron Castorina, Jr. and Nicole Malliotakis’ action to stop NYC from destroying IDNYC data:

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

COUNTY OF RICHMOND

In the Matter of                                                                                :INDEX NO. 80258/16

RONALD CASTORlNA, JR.} and NICOLE MALLIOTAKIS

Petitioners/Plaintiffs,

-against-

BILL DE BLASIO, in his official capacity as MAYOR OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK,

THE OFFICE OF THE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK,

MELISSA MARK-VIVERITO, in her official capacity as the SPEAKER OF THE NEW YORK CITY COUNCIL,

STEVEN BANKS, COMMISSIONER OF THE NEW YORK CITY HUMAN RESOURCES ADMINISTRATION /DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, in his official capacity,

MATTHEW BRUNE, CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER OF THE NEW YORK CITY HUMAN RESOURCES ADMINISTRATION/DEPARTMENT  OF SOCIAL SERVICES, in his official capacity, and

RICARDO BROWNE, EXECUTIVE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MANAGEMENT INFORMATION  SYSTEMS, HUMAN RESOURCES  ADMINISTRATION/DEPARTMENT  OF SOCIAL

SERVICES, in his official capacity,

Respondents/Defendants,

__________________________________________________

For a Judgement Pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules.

AMICUS BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS/PLAINTIFFS’ ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Kings County Conservative Party

486 78th Street

Brooklyn, New York 11209

718-921-2158

By Ross Brady, Esquire

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Pages

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES………………………………………………………………………. 3

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT……………………………………………………………………4

STATEMENT OF FACTS………………………………………………………………………….5

Argument I

The Court should grant Petitioners’ motion to prevent The Mayor, City Council, and members, who exceed their jurisdiction, from destroying data collected in the IDNYC process and thus violating the New York Freedom of Information Law (FOIL)………………………………………………………………8

Argument II

The IDNYC enabling statute and subsequently issued regulations restricting access to records and permitting their destruction violates the New York State Freedom of Information Law……………………..9

CONCLUSION……………………………………………………………………………………10

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page(s)

STATE CASES

Bradford v. Helman, 24 AD2d 937 (ls1 Dep’t 1965) …………………………………            8

Newsday, Inc. v. Sise, 71 NY2d 146 (1987) ………………………………………….              8

Roche v. Lamb, 61 Misc.2d 633 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1969), app. dismissed, 33 AD2d 1102 (4th

Dep’t 1970), aff d, 26 NY2d 54 (1970) ……………………………………………………              9

Tartan Oil Corp. v. State Dept. of Taxation & Fin., 239 AD2d 36 (3d Dep’t.  1998) ..              8

STATE STATUTES

C.P.L.R. § 7803(2) ………………………. ……………………………………………                    8

Public Officers Law § 84 …………… ……………………………………………….              8

Public Officers Law § 89 …………………………………………………………….               9

Vehicle and Traffic Law § 502 ……… .. . ……………………………………………                 10

Vehicle and Traffic Law § 508 …….. … . ……………………………………………                     10

STATE REGULATIONS

15 NYCRR § 160 et seq. ……………………………. ……………. …………………            10

15 NYCRR § 161 et seq. ……………………………………………………………..              10

NEW YORK CITY LOCAL LAWS

New York City Local Law 35/2014  … . .. . … . ………………………………………..                      6

NEW YORK CITY REGULATIONS

NYC Administrative Code 3-115(e) ……….. …………………………………………                10

68  RCNY  6-11   ……………………… ………………………………………………….                10

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

Since 1962, the Kings County Conservative Party has advocated an efficient and limited government, as well as a transparent government for our nation, State and City. In the wake of the September 11th attacks on the United States, including the destruction of the World Trade Center in New York City and the murder of thousands of individuals, the Kings County Conservative Party has consistently supported transparent government and the ability of agencies to share data and information.

It is counterintuitive, if not madness, for the City of New York to destroy information collected to give identification documents to persons regardless of their legal or immigration status. The Administration, along with the City Council Speaker and members of the City Council seek to destroy information that is and should be available not only to agencies, but to individuals seeking information about the precise results of government programs. The effect of such destruction subverts the New York State Freedom of Information Law (FOIL).

The respondents seek to pass to unelected bureaucrats in the Human Resources Administration, the ability to arbitrarily destroy information and over 1,000,000 applications and thereby stymie FOIL requests, obfuscate both persons, our elected officials and law enforcement from receiving information. Even if the respondents prevented the distribution of information only  to government agencies having not learned the lessons of September 11th, the act of deleting the information prevents the fulfillment of FOIL requests.

The respondents wish to destroy information goes against the Mayor’s stated wish for transparency and the grand statements of the Council Speaker. It exceeds the authority of the respondents to delegate quasi-judicial functions such as determining what should be available via FOIL, and is clearly politically motivated as demonstrated by statements made during deliberation in the City Council. (1)

The  Kings County Conservative Party supports the Petitioners’ cause of action and prays the Court rules in favor of their position and affords appropriate relief.

1 Sally Goldenberg, De Blasio to Disclose ‘Substantive ‘ Lobbyist Meetings, POLITICO, May 27, 2014, Attached to the Affirmation of Jeffrey Alfano (“Alfano Aff.”) as Exhibit A. of Petitioners’ brief;

Kate Taylor, De Blasio Pushes on Information Requests, The New York Times, Oct. 19, 2011.     Alfano Aff. Exh. B. of Petitioners’ brief;

Kaela  Sanborn-Hum,  New York City’s Evolving Approach to Open Data, GOTHAM

GAZETTE, April 11, 2016. Alfano Aff. Exh. C. of Petitioners’ brief;

Tara Palmeir, Municipal ID law has ‘delete in case of Tea Party’ clause, NEW YORK POST, Feb. 16, 2015. Alfano Aff. Exh. D.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The facts in this matter are as set forth in Petitioners’ brief:

A. Creation of the IDNYC Program

The New York City Council (“Council”) sought to remedy a number of problems it saw

when it adopted the IDNYC program. A major problem identified by the Council was finding a

solution to provide valid identification for citizens who simply have no reason to drive cars.

During hearings contemplating the introduction of a bill enabling the Mayor to create the IDNYC

took testimony from many stakeholders before submitting the measure to the full Council. One

such witness was Mindy Tarlow, the Director of Mayor’s Office of Operations. During her

testimony before the New York City Council’s Committee on Immigration envisioned a municipal

identification program relying on an administrative model similar to the State Department of Motor

Vehicles. See Alfano Aff. Ex. E attached to Petitioner’s brief (Transcript of the Minutes of the Committee on Immigration, April 30, 2014) p. 34 lines 17-25 (considering application process); p. 35 lines 15-25 (considering fraud protection for the document). During the same committee meeting, Sue Dom, a leader of Manhattan Together and Metro-IAF echoed Director Tarlow’s sentiment that a New York City Municipal Identification Card would provide a similar form of identification for her as an 80-year-old woman without the “hassle of dealing with New York Stat’s DMV.” ld. at p. 20 lines 22-25.

When the proposed legislation made it to the floor of the entire Council, Council Member

Levine articulately explained his vote in favor of the measure. The Council Member stated:

New York City is among the localities in America with the lowest rates of driver’s license among its residents. Well under 60% among adults, and it’s plummeting among young people. That number is

trending downward. This at a time when the circumstances in which we need IDs is rapidly proliferating . .. So this provides a solution for over 40% of adults in New York, a number which is growing, that do not have municipal IDs. Alfano Aff. Exh. F of Petitioners’ brief (Transcript of the Minutes of the State Meeting, June 26, 2014) p. 61 lines 13-20).

In the end, IDNYC passed, in part, based on its modeling of the practices and procedures

found in the administration of New York State’s Department of Motor Vehicles ensuring the

integrity of the identification.

However, the IDNYC program contains a provision permitting the destruction of

documents submitted to the government to obtain the identification card. Identification issued

through the NYCID program expires five years after issuance.  The New York City Code, however, permits the destruction of records associated with the program after two years solely at the discretion of the Respondents.

B. Contemplation of The Destruction of Public Records in Violation of FOIL

Council members identified the IDNYC enabling statute contained significant drafting

flaws. Id. at p. 42 lines 23-25 and p. 43 lines 2-4 (2) and p. 64 lines 7-19.(3)  Glaringly, and identified

by then-Minority Leader Vincent Ignizio, the enabling statute permitted the destruction of public

records leading to serious concerns relating to proper policing within New York City and wherever

IDNYC travel beyond the City’s borders. See NYC Administrative Code 3-115(e), 68 RCNY 6-11, New York City Local Law 35/2014, see also Alfano Exh. F of Petitioners’ brief (Transcript of the Minutes of the State Meeting, June 26, 2014) p. 52 lines 20-25, p. 53 lines 2-25.(4)

In the weeks following the effective date of the enabling statute and accompanying rules,

the public learned the so-called drafting flaws were not included due to the speed of passage but

were part of a methodically thought out plan to circumvent open government requirements

contained in New York Freedom of Information Law.

In a New York Post article entitled “Municipal ID law has ‘delete in case of Tea Party’

clause” Council Member Menchaca bragged about the provision allowing the Respondents to

destroy public records at the end of 2016 was “In case a Tea Party Republican comes into office

and says, ‘We want all of the data from all of the municipal ID programs in the country,’ we’re

going to take the data.” See Alfano Aff. Exh. D. of Petitioners’ brief.  While the article speaks about the document destruction provision of the law as a “sunset” provision, nothing can be farther from reality. The IDNYC program would not come to an end should Respondents exercise the document destruction provision before December 31, 2016. The program, instead, continues but the government records supporting the distribution of the government identification card would be destroyed.

2 Council Member Garodnick: “There are open issues here that we are delegating to the Mayor to sort out, including how to conclusively prevent fraud. I recognize the premium that is being placed on speed, but my preference for this institution would have been for the Council to work these questions out in advance.”

3 Council Member Greenfield: “[It] certainly is a complicated issue in terms of Municipal ID, and I share the concerns that some of the members have raised. I think that we could have had some tweaks to the bill. We could have had more robust discussion on the bill, and we certainly could have improvements on the bill. But we in our position as elected official[s] don’t get to vote on perfect legislation normal (sic). We generally get to vote on imperfect legislation and try to figure out the merits of said legislation.”

4 Council Member Ignizio: “It then goes on to say that we will destroy that documents that we retain, that we are tak[ing] from those that are seeking [a municipal id] …. I will vote no on this bill because I believe there are legitimate security concerns that have no[t] been adequately addressed in it, and notwithstanding the desire of my colleagues to act in a compassionate manner to ensure that people aren’t treated .. unfairly.”

C. Petitioners’ Requests To Preserve Publicly Filed IDNYC Documents

On September 1, 2016, the Superintendent of the New York State Department of Financial

Services (hereinafter “the Superintendent”) issued a letter to New York’s banking industry

October 20,2016, Petitioner, Assembly Member Castorina, wrote the Superintendent requesting

the reconsideration of the sentiments contained that letter. See Alfano Aff. Exh. B. of Petitioners’ brief.

The Superintendent issued no response to Assembly Member Castorina’s letter, nor was it

acknowledged in any other way. In recent weeks Mayor de Blasio announced his intention to

destroy all records associated with the issuance of the IDNYC program through his purported

authority under NYC Administrative Code 3-115( e) and 68 RCNY 6-11. See Alfano Aff. Exh. I. of Petitioners’ brief.

On November 28, 2016, Petitioners requested Respondents refrain from destroying any

government documents submitted in connection with the IDNYC program. See Alfano Aff. Exh.

J. of Petitioners’ brief.  On November 29, 2016, Respondents publicly rejected Petitioners requests to preserve documents submitted in connection with the IDNYC program through Speaker Mark-Viverito’s statement to the press telling Petitioners to “go ahead [and] sue us.” See Alfano Aff. Exh. K. of Petitioners brief.

Petitioners require access to the governmental documents kept in connection with the

IDNYC program in their roles as members of the New York State Assembly’s Committee on

Banks to introduce legislation concerning the ID’s acceptance in banks governed by New York

law. To preserve these documents Petitioners filed FOIL requests with New York City’s

Department of Human Resources Administration/Department of Social Services (hereinafter

“New York City HRA”).

On November 29,2016, at 12:23: 11 p.m., Assembly Member Castorina submitted a FOIL

request seeking: delivery, to my office address listed above, all scanned application

materials associated with IDNYC (also known as New York City’s Municipal ID program) program maintained by HRA and any other City Agency including the Mayor’s Office in digital format. See Alfano Aff. Exh. L. of Petitioners’ brief.

Similarly, on December 2, 2016, at 6:51:06 p.m., Assembly Member Malliotakis submitted

a FOIL request seeking: delivery, to my office address listed above, all scanned application

materials associated with IDNYC (also known as New York City’s Municipal ID program) program maintained by HRA and any other City Agency including the Mayor’s Office in digital format.

See Alfano Aff. Exh. M. of Petitioners’ brief.  Respondents offered no response to either FOIL request!

ARGUMENT I

The Court should grant Petitioners’ motion to prevent The Mayor, City Council, and members, who exceed their jurisdiction, from destroying data collected in the IDNYC process and thus violating the New York Freedom of Information Law (FOIL).

New York State’s Freedom of Information Law, like all freedom of information laws, are liberally construed to maintain records and provide public access to documents and proceedings. The law is an effort at transparency, a goal of government espoused by many, including the Mayor, but not practiced,

The law states:

As state and local government services increase and public problems become more sophisticated

and complex and therefore harder to solve, and with the resultant increase in revenues and

expenditures, it is incumbent upon the state and its localities to extend public accountability

wherever and whenever feasible. The people’s right to know the process of governmental decision

making and to review the documents and statistics leading to determinations is basic to our

society. Access to such information should not be thwarted by shrouding it with the cloak

of secrecy or confidentiality. The legislature therefore declares that government is the public’s

business and that the public, individually and collectively and represented by a free press,

should have access to the records of government in accordance with the provisions of this article.

Public Officers Law § 84, See also Newsday, Inc. v. Sise, 71 NY2d 146 (1987) (Freedom of

Information Law was enacted to provide the public with means to access to government records

in order to encourage public awareness, understanding, and participation in government, and

discourage official secrecy; it is to be liberally construed, and its exemptions narrowly interpreted

so that public is granted maximum access); Tartan Oil Corp. v. State Dept. of Taxation & Fin., 239AD2d 36 (3d Dep’t. 1998) (All record of public agencies are presumptively open to public inspection, and Freedom of Information Law is to be liberally construed with its exceptions

narrowly interpreted).

Respondents, as public officers, remain bound by New York’s Freedom of Information

Law. Respondents, consequently, must preserve rather than destroy public records as they indicate

they will do, or have already done concerning the IDNYC program. Assuming Respondents

continue to respect the Freedom of Information Law, this Court must issue an order of prohibition

pursuant to C.P.L.R. § 7803(2) preventing Respondents from venturing beyond their jurisdiction

as public officers by destroying documents associated with the IDNYC program. See Bradford v.

Helman, 24 AD2d 937 (1st Dep’t 1965) (holding a writ of prohibition acts only to forestall action

and not to review action).

Professor Siegel notes in his treatise, New York Practice, that “prohibition does not lie against strictly administrative action, but only against judicial and quasijudicial action.” Siegel, NY Prac. § 559 at 992 [5 th Ed. 2011], see also Roche v. Lamb, 61 Misc.2d 633 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1969), app. dismissed, 33 AD2d., 102 (4th Dep’t 1970), affd, 26 NY2d 54 (1970) (where city council was proceeding without or in excess of its jurisdiction, petitioner was entitled to judgment prohibiting such action). Here, Respondents’ act in a quasi-judicial capacity rendering a unilateral determination of which records should be preserved and which should be destroyed when New York State law indicates public records must be preserved with the public granted liberal access to them.

The clear language of the enabling statute and the subsequent regulations enacted pursuant

to that statute seek only to obfuscate public access to government records by failing to provide any

avenue for members of the general public to review materials submitted in connection with the

IDNYC program. See NYC Administrative Code § 3-115(e) and 68 RCNY 6-11. Respondents,

instead, focused their energy devising a methodology wherein public records could be destroyed

if the nation chose a member political party opposing their way of thinking as president., a clear violation FOIL. See Public 12 Officers Law § 89(8) (“Any person who, with intent to prevent the public inspection of a record pursuant to this article, willfully conceals or destroys any such record shall be guilty of a violation.”)

Respondents actions do not serve a legitimate governmental interest and represent actions in violation of the spirit and word of the Freedom of Information Law and are taken well beyond their jurisdiction of elected public officers.

ARGUMENT II

The Court should rule that the IDNYC enabling statute and subsequently issued regulations restricting access to records and permitting their destruction violates the New York State Freedom of Information Law.

Respondents must not be allowed to subvert the Freedom of Information Law by enacting a scheme to permit agency workers to destroy documents and information. The intent and effect of such obstruction or obfuscation are contemplated and anticipated in the law.

New York’s Freedom of Information Law punishes “any person who, with intent to prevent

the public inspection of a record pursuant to this article, willfully conceals or destroys any such

record.” Public Officers Law § 89. One of the stated purposes of enacting the IDNYC program

was to provide citizens of New York City with access to identification which would ultimately be

treated similarly to a New York State Driver License issued by the Department of Motor Vehicles.

During floor debate, several members of the Council indicated the disparity between citizens living

in New York City that do not drive cars against those with cars. In fact, Director Tarlow from the

Mayor’s Office indicated the IDNYC program should function similar to the state Department of

Motor Vehicles. In fact, Council Members noted the similarity between the IDNYC program and

the licenses issued by the Department of Motor Vehicles to allay their concerns regarding the

possibility of fraud inherent in any governmental identification program.

The Vehicle and Traffic Law governing New York State Driver Licenses contemplate both

the transmission of personal information between governmental bodies and agencies, i.e. the

Selective Service, and public access to records kept in connection with the business conducted by

the Department of Motor Vehicles. See VTL § 502 and § 508. In fact, the regulations of the

Commissioner Motor Vehicles offer extensive rules concerning the public’s access to motor

vehicle records. See 15 NYCRR § 160 et seq. and 15 NYCRR § 161 et seq. Noticeably absent

from these extensive regulations is any regulation permitting the Commissioner of the Department

of Motor Vehicles, or the Governor, from destroying any information submitted by applicants to

obtain an identification through the department.

New York City’s IDNYC program vests authority to destroy governmental documents

submitted in connection with that program in the unelected bureaucracy of New York City’s HRA.

See NYC Administrative Code § 3-115(c) and 68 RCNY 6-11.

The precedent created by the IDNYC program’s confidentiality provisions begin a slippery

slope to government not by the people but rather by executive fiat. While such a solution created

by the Council and the Mayor may have been crafted with the best intentions not meant to abridge

the rights of New Yorkers, the road to hell  is paved with good intentions.

CONCLUSION

The Kings County Conservative Party respectfully request this Court grant the Petitioner’s its Order to Show Cause seeking 1) an Order of Prohibition preventing Respondents from exceeding the jurisdiction of their office; 2) an Order finding the confidentiality provisions of the IDNYC program in violation of New York State’s Freedom of Information Law and declaring those portions of the IDNYC program permitting the destruction of public documents by New York City HRA and limiting public access to the same null and void, and 3) for such injunctive, other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.

Dated: Brooklyn, New York

December 30, 2016

Respectfully submitted,

s/~Ross Brady

Ross Brady, Esq. for

Kings County Conservative Party

486 78th Street

Brooklyn, New York 11209

718-921-2158

To:      New York City Corporate Counsel

100 Church Street

New York, NY 10007

Attn: Thomas Roberts

Jeffrey Alfano, Esq.

Law Office of Jeffrey Alfano

1000 South Avenue, Ste104

Staten Island, NY 10314

Categories
Search
Categories