Opinion
Index No. 69092/2022
03-08-2023
In the Matter of the Application of Ryan M. Hughes, Petitioner, for an order and judgment pursuant NY CPLR article 78 v. City of Mount Vernon, Respondent.
Ryan Hughes: Isaacs Devasia Castro & Wien LLP by Liam L. Castro, Esq. and Steven A. Isaacs, Esq. City of Mount Vernon: The Wagstaff Firm, P.C. by William O. Wagstaff III, Esq.
Unpublished Opinion
Ryan Hughes: Isaacs Devasia Castro & Wien LLP by Liam L. Castro, Esq. and Steven A. Isaacs, Esq.
City of Mount Vernon: The Wagstaff Firm, P.C. by William O. Wagstaff III, Esq.
Robert J. Prisco, J.
The following papers, numbered 1-3, were read in determining Respondent's Motion to Dismiss Petitioner's petition for relief pursuant to Civil Practice Law and Rules ("CPLR") Article 78:
Papers Numbered
Motion Sequence.......1
Verified Petition/Exhibits A-C/Notice of Verified Petition/Memorandum of Law in Support of the Verified Petition........1
Motion Sequence..........2
Notion of Motion to Dismiss/Affirmation in Support of Motion to Dismiss Petition of William O. Wagstaff, III, Esq./ Exhibits A-B/Memorandum of Law......2
Petitioner's Memorandum of Law in Opposition to the Respondent's Cross-Motion to Dismiss the Verified Petition...........3
Only a Verified Petition and Motion to Dismiss are before the Court.
Relevant Background
On August 24, 2019, Ryan Hughes (hereinafter "Petitioner"), while on duty as a Mount Vernon Police Officer, allegedly used force against a detainee and such event was captured on police department body camera video.
On June 11, 2020, in connection with the above event, Petitioner was arrested and subsequently charged with Reckless Endangerment in the Second Degree pursuant to Penal Law [PL] § 120.20.
A criminal jury trial pertaining to the above charge was commenced and the aforementioned body camera video was introduced as evidence therein. At the conclusion of the People's case, the Court granted Petitioner's motion to dismiss the charge and the record of such action was sealed pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law [CPL] § 160.50. The sealing order included the body camera video.
The City of Mount Vernon (hereinafter "Respondent") subsequently brought disciplinary charges against Petitioner based upon the August 24, 2019 incident and the Police Department's Commissioner appointed Robert J. Ponzini as the "Hearing Officer."
Prior to the commencement of the hearing, Respondent indicated its intent to introduce the body camera video, which is accessible on YouTube, during the hearing. Petitioner objected and argued that such video was inadmissible as it had been sealed by the criminal trial court. Consequently, the parties requested that the Hearing Officer determine this evidentiary issue in advance of any scheduled hearing.
On October 14, 2022, the Hearing Officer issued a "final determination," permitting Respondent's use of the body camera video as evidence during the hearing, "given that the bodycam video is accessible on the internet and is fully in the public domain and given that the City is not seeking to unseal the files of any agencies to procure the video."
Procedural History
On December 7, 2022, Petitioner filed a Verified Petition and a Notice of Verified Petition seeking an order "finding that [the] final decision to use as evidence a body cam video, which was sealed by a criminal court, in the Respondent's due process disciplinary matter was affected by an error of law; and ordering that they be enjoined from using the same in that disciplinary matter unless and until that video is unsealed by this Court. Attached to the Verified Petition is Petitioner's Memorandum of Law.
On January 30, 2023, Respondent filed a Notice of Motion to Dismiss, pursuant to CPLR § 7804 (f), on the ground that the Petition fails to state a cause of action. Attached to Respondent's motion is an "Affirmation in Support of [the] Motion to Dismiss Petition," submitted by William O. Wagstaff, III, Esq., and a Memorandum of Law.
On January 31, 2023, Petitioner filed a "Memorandum of Law in Opposition to the Respondent's Cross-Motion to Dismiss the Verified Petition."
Motion to Dismiss
Pursuant to CPLR § 7803 (3), Petitioner contends that "Respondent's decision to permit the sealed video into evidence in [the] administrative proceeding was affected by an error of law," and he requests that the Court "[order that Respondent] be enjoined from using the same in that disciplinary matter unless and until that video is unsealed by this Court." Specifically, Petitioner contends that "the Hearing Officer did not have the authority to determine whether the video may be used" as "[t]hat is for the Court to decide."
Respondent asserts that the petition fails to state a cause of action because "[n]o cause of action can lie when a [p]etitioner makes an application to annul a decision that was never made.""Generally, a CPLR article 78 proceeding may not be used to challenge a nonfinal determination by a body or officer" (Matter of Cor Rte. 5 Co., LLC v Village of Fayetteville, 147 A.D.3d 1432, 1433 [4th Dept 2017], quoting Matter of Young v Board of Trustees of Vil. of Blasdell, 221 A.D.2d 975, 977 [4th Dept 1995], aff'd 89 N.Y.2d 846 [1996]; see Matter of East Ramapo Cent. Sch. Dist. v King, 29 N.Y.3d 938, 939 [2017]; Matter of Witryol v CWM Chem. Servs., L.L.C., 174 A.D.3d 1449, 1451 [4th Dept 2019]; Matter of Maor v Town of Ramapo Planning Bd., 44 A.D.3d 665, 666 [2d Dept 2007]; Ogden Citizens for Responsible Land Use v. Planning Bd. of Town of Ogden, 224 A.D.2d 921, 921 [4th Dept 1996]; CPLR § 7801 (1)). Here, while Petitioner avers that the parties agree that a final determination was reached, this contention is without merit as the determination by the Hearing Officer to allow Respondent to use the body camera video during the disciplinary hearing was not a final determination and did not conclude the proceedings. Instead, the Hearing Officer's determination was a preliminary ruling on an evidentiary issue and, as such, it is not a matter for which Court intervention is appropriate under CPLR § 7803 (3).
Moreover, even if this matter was properly before this Court pursuant to CPLR Article 78, the petition would still be dismissed as Petitioner has mischaracterized the Hearing Officer's determination regarding the use of the body camera video. Contrary to Petitioner's claim, the Hearing Officer is not permitting Respondent to introduce evidence that was previously sealed by the criminal trial court pursuant to CPL § 160.50. Rather, the Hearing Officer is allowing Respondent to use a video that is already a part of the public domain.
The Hearing Officer noted in his Decision that, "[p]rior to the criminal trial of Officer Hughes, the video of the incident was released to the media," and that "[a] simple Google search brings up a Lohud.com article published on July 1, 2020, showing video of the August 24, 2019 incident." Thus, "[o]nce released, the genie cannot be put back in the bottle."
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED, that Respondent's motion to dismiss is granted and Petitioner's Verified Petition is hereby dismissed.
The foregoing constitutes the Decision, Order and Judgment of this Court. To the extent not addressed, the relief is denied.