Cite as: Uniformed Fire Officers Association v. NYC, 101799/12, NYLJ 1202579119676, at *1 (App. Div., 1st, Decided November 20, 2012)

Before: Mazzarelli, J.P., Sweeny, Moskowitz, Renwick, Freedman, JJ.

Decided: November 20, 2012

ATTORNEYS

For appellant: Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, Drake A. Colley of counsel.

Respondent: Certilman Balin Adler & Hyman, LLP, East Meadow, Paul S. Linzer of counsel, for Uniformed Firefighters Association, Local 94.

Respondent: Pryor Cashman, LLP, New York, Joshua Zuckerberg of counsel, for Uniformed Fire Officers Association, Local 854.

 

*1

 

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Arthur F. Engoran, J.), entered on or about April 10, 2012, which denied the City's motion to quash a judicial subpoena, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The City failed to show that the public interest would be harmed by the disclosure of drafts of a public safety consultant's report recommending a change to the 911 call system (see Matter of World Trade Ctr. Bombing Litig., 93 NY2d 1, 10 [1999]). Absent sensitive subject matter or exposure of review participants to liability, the City's contention that the disclosure of the drafts would have a chilling effect on the internal discussions of those engaged in reviewing technical projects such as this is speculative. Petitioners, on the other hand, have shown a need for the drafts in preparing their case before the Collective Bargaining Board.

There is no basis for the City's claim of protection under the so-called "self-critical" privilege. This privilege has never been recognized under New York law, and this case is not the exceptional and compelling case that justifies the judicial creation of a new privilege (see Lamitie v. Emerson Elec. Co.-White Rodgers Div., 142 AD2d 293, 298-299 [3d Dept 1988], lv dismissed 74 NY2d 650 [1989]).

 

*2

 

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.