Skip to content

Get Judicial Watch Updates!

DONATE

Judicial Watch • JW v NYC and NYPD Cardillo 02LE5085475

JW v NYC and NYPD Cardillo 02LE5085475

JW v NYC and NYPD Cardillo 02LE5085475

Page 1: JW v NYC and NYPD Cardillo 02LE5085475

Category:

Number of Pages:8

Date Created:November 22, 2017

Date Uploaded to the Library:November 22, 2017

Tags:Cardillo, squad, Jurgensen, Detective, NYC, NYPD, Sought, Petitioner, Major, Nation of Islam, relevant, Respondents, denial, sergeant, police, Division, philip, investigation, requests, order, Supreme Court, department


File Scanned for Malware

Donate now to keep these documents public!


See Generated Text   ∨

Autogenerated text from PDF

SUPREME COURT THE STATF NEVJ YORK
COUNTY NEW YORK
_______________________________________
JUDICIAL WATCH, INC, Index No.
Petitioner,
~against- VERIFIED
PETITION
THE CITY NEW YORK and THE NEW YORK
CllY POLICE DEPARTMENT,
Respondents.
......................................
Judicial Watch, Ina, Judicial Watch and for its Petition seeking Order pursuant Article otthc Civil Practice Law and Rules CLPR and FOlL: it) directing the Cityof
New York (the City and the New York City Police Department NYPD immediately
respond Judicial Watch outstanding Freedom information Law (FOIL requests and,
speci cally, immediately produce: (1) The audio tape the 10-13 (smear distress call
recorded the Police Communications Division 11:41 am. April 14, l972; and (2) The
Major Case Squad report and files the homicide etNYPD Patrolman Philip Cardillo;
granting Judicial Watch its casts and expenses, including reasonable uttemeys fws being
Forced the instant action based Resprindeut failure respond valid FOIL request
and [or failing meet own deadlines and mandates failing respond; and granting
Judicial Watch any such other further relief this Court deems and proper: states and avers follows:
PreliminQ Statement The reliefsought this Petition based the need for reasonable compliance
with FOIL the City quew York City and the New York City Police Department NYPD and together with City, the Respondents the Mayor; for those entities held accountable for the decisions and determinations oftheir own Rcmrds Access Appeals
Officer; for the strictures FOIL adhered for the good all citizens the State and
Country; and vindicate the rigits Judicial Watch seeking the requested documentation
identi the legitimate FOIL requests that are outstanding. Petitioner has made valid requests For the limited documents identi the
FOlL requests issue (discussed further length below) but, date, despite the fact that the
documents stem From forty- (45) year old matter and certain the requested items were
provided the NYPD retired Detective Randy Jurgensen who has submitted davit
Support the relevant Order Show Cause seeking the same relief sought herein,
Respondents have yet provide one responsive document and only have prmided conclusory
unsubstantiated, non-speci bases for denial individual with personal knowledge the
underlying investigation.
Jurisdiction and Venue This Court has jurisdiction over like Article proceedings based FOIL
request denials State: City other municipal entities agencies, category which
Respondents clearly fall, Venue proper the complained acts and denial ocwrrod this
County and prondents principal ces are this County. Judicial Watch (e)(3) nonpro organization with principal sin
Washington, DC. The City ofNew York and the NYPD are municipal entities that are subject the
,2,
requirements FOIL.
Baekgound Facts The relevant FOiL requests were made June 2017 the NYPD Record
Access cer, One Police Plaza Room FOIL Unit Legl Bureau, New York, New
York 10038, (True copies the requests are attached hereto Exhibits and The rst reques which was received June 2017 and assigned FOIL #7617 sought Tho audio [ape the 10-13 cer distress call recorded the Police
Communications Division :41 mm. April 14, 1972. The second request which was also received June 2017 and assigned FOIL
#7628 explained the NYPD Sought the Major Case Squad report the investigative the hnmicide NYPD Pamjlman Philip Cardillov June 23, 2017, the NYPD denied both FOIL requests issue.
10. July 17, 2017 Petitioner timely appealed both denials? separate
correspondence (see true copies the appeal letters attached hereto Exhibits and
ll. correspondence dated July 25, 2017, the NYPD denied Petiuonet appeals (sot:
copy uly 25, 2017 correspondence atmohcd hereto Exhibit 13).
10. The sole stated basis for the denial was that:
...disolosure ofthe records would interfere with pending criminal investigation
[Public cet Law 87(2)(:7)(I)]. This statute speci cally pmvidm that
agency, may deny access records portions rherwt that an: compllud tiur
law enforcement purposes and which, disclosed, would interfere with law
enforcement investigations judicial procwdings. this writing, the
criminal investigation into the incident remains active and ongoing,
Accordingly disulosum must denied the release the requested
dncuments would interfere with this pending criminal investigation.
11. The denial letter Went discount the representations ofrelired Detective
Randy Jurgensen Jurgensen and misreprment both the import and relevance Jurgenuen
statements. the letter went allege that, [3].; this Writing, review cial
Department records indicates that the case still being actively investigated and that numerous
updates have been made the can: file since Mr. Jurgensen alleged that the prove [sic] was
over.
12. The reasons that the Respondents denials are without merit are myriad haeh
the following indisputable [nets are reason their own rejects the Respondenls denial and
grant the relief sought Petitioner herein.
13. First. per NYPD poliey. the case was closed upon the arrest and indictment
Lewis 17X Dupree 1974 and passed the District Attemey for trial.
14. Second. the denial was not substantiated any duvig testimony relevant
detail whatsoever, much less indiwiduai with personal knowledge the underlying
invaligatiun both required relevant law. The denial the appeal the FOlL requests
herein does not even allege that the signer has any personal knowledge the relevant facts,
15. Third. and similarly. the conclusory basis for denial ofthe relevant FOIL requestt
proxides details, speci even anypotentiel basis for how disclosure the documents
sought the relevant FOIL requests could, much less would, have any ect whatsoever any
lnw enforcement investigations judicial proceedings also required relevant law.
16. ourth, early 2015. Detectii Sergeant Francis djuddy Mumanc, who was the
Major Case Squad Leader for the terimestigution, epwi eally rmed that the re-
opened investigation probe was over; that the Major Case Squad report was nished
.4.
and that there was more Investigation done. Similarly, March 19, 2012, Deputy
Commissioner Bmvme the NYPD advised the New York Daily News that case was closed.
While recognizing that there hm] been new investigation, also acknowledged that [i]t didn
turn any useful information, Moreover. Jurgensen #the individual with more rsthand
knowledge the entirety offaets surrounding this matter than any other person and who was
made port the reritivestigation oomrnenoed 2006 (to the point where was given desk
among the other Maj Case Squad Detectives) has testi that the roinvestigation ascertained ncvt facts about Phil Carillo murder and that new investigations judicial proceedings
arose from the opened inquiry,
17. Filth must remembered that the records sought involve events that took
place over forty (40) years ago The documents sought are reviews records from four decades
ago those records themselves. The only suspect the killing ofO icer Cardillo was tried two
times the 19705. The NYPD Major Case Squad con rmed that they developer! new
suspects and that Jurgensen and his team got the right individual some forty (40) ycaIs ago
There has been relevant judicial proceeding for over forty (40) years, The City and the
NYPD failure disclosure this records outrage and wholly without support fact, equit; common sense, much less the relevant statutes and case law.
1%. Sixth, must noted also dint many the records now being sought were
provided Jurgcnscn the WPD the request the NYPD. These transfers include the
recording sought FOIL Request #7627. With regard that Request the denial ofrhe City and
the YPD particularly egregious additionally because the fact that the transcript that
recording has been made public various media over the intervening forty- (45) years
.5.
There can nothing shunt the recording itself that could interfere with any the phantom
investigations judicial proceedings that Sergeant Mazur, all indiVirtual with personal
knowledge the relevant matters, has new purperttxl.
19. should alsn tinted that Sergeant anur its very careful note that numerous
updates have been made the case file :iqu: Mr. lurgcnsen alleged that the pmvc [sic] was
over referencing January 2015 conversation between Jnrgensen and lend Detective Sergeant
Mutnnne. the extent that any additions have been made since January 2015, likely that
they are merely DDS forms, green sheets eeting non-substantive additin nuludi ngt
way example, the completion the Major Case Squad report, the transmission ofthc
upstairs and likely Lhe ling requests for information concerning the same articles
consenting the now close re-investigation. any event same have not been tied speci
investigation, mltchlc any actual throat any such investigation should the and the 911
tape released this time.
20. Judicial Wateh instant FOIL requests have been denied unlawfully.
21. Article proceeding the appropriate method for denial undue delay
regarding FOIL requests like the ones issue herein.
22. The refusal respond Petitioner OIL requests arbitrary and capricious,
constitutes abused discretion and clearly unreasonable denial Petitioner 01L
request.
23. Petitioner has right the documents sought
24. Petitioner has exhausted its administrative remedies and has other remedy
law the Respondents have improperly denied Petitioner lawful requests. Further
.5.
administrativc pmcwdings would clearly poinLlcss the Respondents refuse adhere the
applicable legal standards. lEREFORET respectfully requested that Order entered pursuant Article
ufthc Civil Practice Law and Rules CLPR and FOIL: directing the City Now York(theC1ty) and the New York City Police
Department NYT immediately respond Judicial VValoh outstanding Freedom
Information Law (FOIL requests and, speci cally, immediately produce: The audio lapc ofthc 10-l cer distress call rccordcd the Police
Communications Division 11:41 am. April 14, 1972; and The Major Case Squad report and iilcs the homicide anYl
Patrolman Philip Cardillo. granting Judicial Watch its costs and expenses, including reasonable nttomcys
fees being forced the instant action based Respondents fallure respond valid
FOIL request; and granting Judicial ateh any such other further relief this Court deems and
proper
Dated: New York, New York
November 16, 2017 ces ofNeal Eri clmian, P.C.
Counsel for Judicial Watch, lnc.
420 Lexington Avmuc Suite 24-40
New York, New York 10170
(212) 98676840
VERIFICATION
Slate New York 58:
County New York
Micah Moms on, hsing duly sworn, deposes and says: employee Peli oner, Judicial Watch. herein, serving Chief Investigative
Reporter have the foregoing tiou, and know cuntunls thereof. The same are true own knowledge, except mattcts alleged information and belief, those
matters, your anl believes them true,
Mica]: Mnrrlson/
Sworn before this day ofNovcmlJcr, 2017