Opinion
14977 Index No. 29505/17 Case No. 2021–00600
01-06-2022
Nandranie NARIS, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. Andra HAMILTON et al., Defendants, Lufthansa Cargo Aktiengesellschaft, Defendant–Appellant.
Nicoletti Hornig & Sweeney, New York (Guerric S.D.L. Russell of counsel), for appellant. Pollack, Pollack, Isaac & DeCicco, LLP, New York (Brian J. Isaac of counsel), for respondent.
Nicoletti Hornig & Sweeney, New York (Guerric S.D.L. Russell of counsel), for appellant.
Pollack, Pollack, Isaac & DeCicco, LLP, New York (Brian J. Isaac of counsel), for respondent.
Webber, J.P., Friedman, Oing, Moulton, Kennedy, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Julia I. Rodriguez, J.), entered January 21, 2021, which, insofar appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted plaintiff's motion to compel defendant Lufthansa Cargo Aktiengesellschaft to produce a Cargo Screening Training Syllabus (CSTS), unanimously modified, on the law and the facts, to grant the motion solely to the extent of directing Lufthansa, within 20 days from the date of this order, to seek authorization from the relevant federal agency specified by 49 CFR 1520.9(a) to produce the CSTS to plaintiff's counsel, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.
Because the CSTS is designated as "Sensitive Security Information" under federal law (see 49 CFR 1520.5 [b]), federal law prohibits Lufthansa from disclosing it without authorization from the relevant federal agency (see 49 CFR 1520.9 [a]), subject to certain exceptions not relevant here. Supreme Court, in granting the motion to compel, should not have directed Lufthansa to disclose the CSTS in violation of federal law.
We have considered the parties’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing.