Prosecutors Have the Right to Keep Some Secrets
Post 5093
Application of New York's Freedom of Information Law (FOIL)
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g5FHC3bf and at https://lnkd.in/gNt6447Q, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5050 posts.
James M. Haddad sought to compel Alvin L Bragg (Bragg) to produce certain material seized pursuant to a search warrant executed in connection with a now-completed criminal matter.
In James M. Haddad v. Alvin L Bragg, in his official capacity as District Attorney of the County of New York, 2025 NY Slip Op 31779(U), Index No. 158493/2023, Supreme Court, New York County (May 15, 2025) the court resolved the dispute.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
OneTeam Restoration, Inc., its owner and president, Mario Rojas, Jr., and certified public accountant Steven Lyon were charged with three counts of Insurance Fraud in the First Degree and Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree based on allegations that Lyon, Rojas, and OneTeam engaged in a scheme to defraud the New York State Insurance Fund.
On April 26, 2023, petitioner submitted a Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) request to Bragg, the New York County District Attorney's Office. The FOIL sought the original rap sheets, warrants and corporate summons, production log and a thumb drive containing the discovery materials. The "discovery materials" on the thumb drive were, at least in part, thousands of pages of these defendants' business and financial records seized pursuant to a search warrant.
Bragg's Records Access Officer ("RAO" ) Corey S. Shoock denied petitioner's request on the grounds that disclosure would "interfere with the criminal judicial process, as well as with any further investigation and future judicial proceedings that might be necessary." Petitioner appealed the denial of his FOIL request.
Shortly thereafter, Rojas and OneTeam pled guilty to one count each of First Degree Falsifying Business Records and were sentenced that day.
Because the third defendant, Steven Lyon, remained open the appeal affirmed the RAO's determination and denial on pending judicial proceeding grounds and incorporate by reference his reasoning and cited authority.
In a post-remand decision on June 16, 2023, RAO Shoock wrote: “[P]ursuant to that portion of the AO's decision granting your appeal, you will be provided access to the following thirty-three (33) pages of material ... [but] [i]nsofar as criminal charges remain pending against defendant Steven Lyon, Omnibus Motion papers relating to defendant Lyon, discovery produced in the criminal prosecution against defendant Lyon, together with email correspondence between opposing counsel and with the Court, is exempt from production on the grounds that disclosure of such records would interfere with three pending prosecutions conducted by this Office against this defendant ...” [emphasis added]).
DISCUSSION
FOIL imposes a broad duty on government to make its records available to the public and all government records are thus presumptively open for public inspection and copying unless they fall within an enumerated statutory exemption contained in Public Officers Law § 87(2). The burden rests on the agency to establish that requested material qualifies for any of the exemptions, which must be narrowly construed.
Bragg met the burden by establishing that the requested records fell "squarely" within an exemption to disclosure. The statute exempts from disclosure records or portions thereof that are compiled for law enforcement purposes and which, if disclosed, would interfere with law enforcement investigations or judicial proceedings.
The petition was denied and this special proceeding dismissed.
ZALMA OPINION
FOIL limits the freedom of information available to criminal litigants and the public if it has an effect on the prosecution to disclose that information. Even after some defendants pleaded guilty to insurance fraud, others did not, so the FOIL request stayed refused. Regardless of the need for information to be freely available from prosecutors like Bragg, that freedom is not unlimited and the prosecutor may keep the evidence private for the purposes of trial.
(c) 2025 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Subscribe to my substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe
Go to X @bzalma; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk.
Happy Law Day
ZIFL – Volume 30, Issue 9 – May 1, 2026
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/zalmas-insurance-fraud-letter-may-1-2026-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-2tywc, see the video at at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
THE SOURCE FOR THE INSURANCE FRAUD PROFESSIONAL
ZIFL – Volume 30, Issue 9 – May 1, 2026
Zalma’s Insurance Fraud Letter (ZIFL) continues its 30th year of publication dedicated to those involved in reducing the effect of insurance fraud. ZIFL is published 24 times a year and is written by Barry Zalma.
DOJ Creates National Fraud Enforcement Division
Will the Feds Take on Insurance Fraud? Possibly as Part of a National Anti-Fraud Effort
On April 7, 2026, the Acting Attorney General, Todd Blanche, issued a memorandum establishing the Department of Justice National Fraud Enforcement Division (NFED). The memo describes an ambitious, but perhaps redundant, vision for this ...
When Abalone Died As a Result of Multiple Causes The Efficient Proximate Cause Requires Payment
Post number 5345
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/efficient-proximate-cause-doctrine-saves-claim-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-yndlc, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
In American Abalone Farms, LLC v. Star Insurance Company et al., H052643, California Court of Appeals, Sixth District (April 27, 2026) the Court of Appeals dealt with an insurance coverage issue that required application of the efficient proximate cause doctrine.
FACTS
American Abalone Farms, LLC ("American Abalone" ) operates an aquaculture farm in Santa Cruz County, California, raising abalone in tanks. In August 2020, the CZU Lightning Complex Fires led to a prolonged power outage and road closures near the farm. As a result, the farm’s water pumps failed, causing the death of most of the ...
Breach of a Specific Condition Precedent Is a Complete Defense
See the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
In United Services Automobile Association and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Anthony Wenzell, 2026 CO 25 (Colo. Apr. 27, 2026) Anthony Wenzell was rear-ended in a car accident. He had a significant prior 2014 accident that required back surgery.
Wenzell claimed underinsured-motorist (UIM) benefits under three policies: (1) the tortfeasor’s liability policy, (2) his own primary UIM policy with State Farm, and (3) an excess UIM policy issued by USAA (under his brother’s policy, which contained an “other insurance” clause making USAA’s coverage excess over any collectible insurance).
After receiving the claims, both USAA and State Farm repeatedly requested that Wenzell execute comprehensive medical-release authorizations so they could obtain his full medical records and ...
It is Fraud to Make the Same Claim Twice
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/fraud-make-same-claim-twice-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-c4g8c and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Chutzpah: After Being Paid for a New Roof Insured Makes Second Claim For Same Damages
Post number 5347
No One is Entitled to be Paid for the Same Loss Twice
In Mohammed Ali Khalili v. State Farm Lloyds, No. 14-25-00611-CV, Court of Appeals of Texas (April 30, 2026) Khalili maintained a State Farm Lloyds homeowners insurance policy for decades. In 2008 he filed a roof-damage claim; State Farm paid him to replace the entire roof (shingles and gutters). Khalili never replaced the roof and repeated his claim.
BACKGROUND
In 2021 he filed a second roof claim. State Farm’s inspectors found the roof “very old” with extensive non-storm-related damage. The claim was denied because (1) the damage did not exceed the deductible and (2) State Farm had already paid for a full roof replacement.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
State Farm filed motion for summary...
It is Fraud to Make the Same Claim Twice
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/fraud-make-same-claim-twice-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-c4g8c and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Chutzpah: After Being Paid for a New Roof Insured Makes Second Claim For Same Damages
Post number 5347
No One is Entitled to be Paid for the Same Loss Twice
In Mohammed Ali Khalili v. State Farm Lloyds, No. 14-25-00611-CV, Court of Appeals of Texas (April 30, 2026) Khalili maintained a State Farm Lloyds homeowners insurance policy for decades. In 2008 he filed a roof-damage claim; State Farm paid him to replace the entire roof (shingles and gutters). Khalili never replaced the roof and repeated his claim.
BACKGROUND
In 2021 he filed a second roof claim. State Farm’s inspectors found the roof “very old” with extensive non-storm-related damage. The claim was denied because (1) the damage did not exceed the deductible and (2) State Farm had already paid for a full roof replacement.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
State Farm filed motion for summary...
What Must be Done after Notice of a Claim is Received by the Insurer
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gzvvdkMZ and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Below you will read from this post until you reach the the end of this blog post as the free part of an Excellence in Claims Handling post. To read the full article and receive all articles for members of Excellence in Claims Handling you should consider joining as a paid member to get full access to articles for members only, to our news, analysis, insurance coverage, claims, insurance fraud and insurance webinars, by clicking at the subscription link below.
A first party property policy does not insure property: it insures a person, partnership, corporation or other entity against the risk of loss of the property. Before an insured can make a claim for indemnity under a policy of first party property insurance the insured must prove that there was damage to property the risk of loss of which was insured by the policy. The obligation imposed on the insured ...
