Matter of Carr v. De Blasio, 2021 NY Slip Op 04412

Background:

On July 17, 2014 NYPD Officer Daniel Pantaleo and others restrained Eric Garner during a Staten Island stop; Garner repeatedly said “I can’t breathe” and later died; the Medical Examiner ruled the death a homicide citing chokehold, chest compression, and prone positioning.
IAB, CCRB, the Richmond County DA, DOJ, and NYPD disciplinary processes investigated; Pantaleo was later charged administratively and fired after an administrative trial; other officers received limited discipline or plea dispositions.
Petitioners (taxpayers, including Garner’s family) filed for a New York City Charter § 1109 summary inquiry (Matter of Carr) seeking investigation into seven categories: the stop/arrest/use of force (beyond Pantaleo), training, false official filings, leaks of records, public statements, medical care provided, and the City’s investigative/disciplinary response.
Supreme Court denied respondents’ motion to dismiss and ordered a § 1109 summary inquiry limited to four areas: (1) stop/arrest and force by officers other than Pantaleo, (2) official filings about the arrest, (3) unlawful leaks of Garner’s records/autopsy, and (4) alleged failure by officers to render medical aid.
Respondents argued the petition duplicates FOIL, is unconstitutional as-applied (separation of powers), and would improperly intrude on policy or invite floodgates; the Appellate Division unanimously affirmed the Supreme Court order, finding a rare need for transparency.

Issues:

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a §1109 summary inquiry is warranted into the stop/arrest and force by officers other than Pantaleo	Carr: Significant unresolved questions about probable cause, use of force, and lack of public findings warrant inquiry	De Blasio: Prior investigations and publicity suffice; inquiry is unnecessary and duplicative	Court: Warranted — publicity ≠ transparency; limited inquiry into officers other than Pantaleo affirmed
Whether a §1109 inquiry violates separation of powers as-applied	Carr: Inquiry seeks transparency, not to usurp administrative functions	De Blasio: Judicial inquiry intrudes on executive policy/administration	Court: No violation — inquiry limited to allegations of duty violation/neglect and does not seek equitable relief or management of agencies
Whether FOIL or other alternatives preclude a §1109 inquiry	Carr: FOIL responses have been delayed/redacted and are inadequate; §1109 provides broader, public fact-finding	De Blasio: FOIL and existing investigations are adequate; §1109 is unnecessary	Court: FOIL is not exclusive; §1109 can compel testimony and unredacted record — summary inquiry appropriate where FOIL is insufficient
Whether §1109 may properly reach alleged misconduct by low-level officers / risk of "floodgates"	Carr: Issues have public significance given death and unanswered questions	De Blasio: Would open floodgates and target low-level officers improperly	Court: §1109 text covers any violation/neglect of duty; strict standards and separation-of-powers limits keep §1109 an exceptional remedy; this is a rare case meriting inquiry

Key Cases Cited

Matter of Pantaleo v. O'Neill, 192 A.D.3d 598 (affirming administrative termination for prohibited chokehold)
Matter of James v. Farina, 171 A.D.3d 44 (describing sui generis separation-of-powers analysis for §1109 and limits on inquiries)
Matter of Riches v. New York City Council, 75 A.D.3d 33 (discussing considerations like pendency of investigations and public significance for §1109)
Matter of Green v. Giuliani, 187 Misc. 2d 138 (construing §1109 as broadly applicable to official misconduct)
Brown v. Wing, 93 N.Y.2d 517 (statutory interpretation principle that unambiguous statutes must be applied as written)
Cuomo v. Long Is. Lighting Co., 71 N.Y.2d 349 (limitations on advisory opinions and need for justiciable controversies)
American Ins. Ass'n v. Chu, 64 N.Y.2d 379 (jurisdictional/justiciability principles relevant to courts' role)