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.
Arsonist Tried To Represent Himself, Failed, and Sought Habeas Relief
Post number 5357
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/he-who-acts-his-own-lawyer-has-idiot-client-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-d4bwc, See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Karacson’s Arson for Profit Attempt Required Skill & Experience to Succeed
In Steve Ellis Karacson v. David Shaver, Warden, No. 25-1089, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit (May 20, 2026) Steve Karacson was convicted in Michigan state court of arson and insurance fraud after evidence showed he burned his own insured home. Investigators found multiple points of origin, gasoline odor, and evidence tying him to the scene, including cell-phone location data and a receipt showing he had purchased a gas can and gloves shortly before the fire.
FACTS
Karacson initially had appointed counsel, but his relationships with both appointed attorneys ...
Foolish to Repeatedly Disobey Court Orders
All That Remains For Trial Is Plaintiff’s Damages On Each Of These Claims And Establishing Proximate Causation Of Those Damages.
Post number 5348
See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus 5300 posts.
In Linh Wang v. Esurance Insurance Company, No. C24-0447-JCC, United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle (May 1, 2026) John C. Coughenour, United States District Judge, found that throughout this case, culminating with its briefing on Plaintiff’s renewed motion and that Defendant has subjected Plaintiff to unnecessary motion practice for clearly discoverable information and made dubious representations (including to the Court).
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
This case involves an underinsured/uninsured motorist insurance bad faith claim arising from a 2017 motor vehicle collision. The plaintiff, Linh Wang, alleges that Esurance Insurance ...
The Right to Negotiate with Insurer is Not an Assignment of Claims
Post number 5347
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ambiguous-contract-repair-assignment-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-2xppc, see the full video at https://rumble.com/v79is1s-ambiguous-contract-to-repair-not-an-assignment.html and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Nebraska Requires an Actual Assignment to Allow Contractor to Sue Insurer
In Millard Gutter Company, a corporation doing business as Millard Roofing and Gutter v. Farmers Mutual Insurance Company of Nebraska, also known as Farmers Mutual Insurance, also known as Farmers Mutual, No. A-24-818, Court of Appeals of Nebraska (May 5, 2026) Millard sued Farmers as an assignee of Jane Anzalone who had hired Millard Gutter to repair the roof of her home and agreed to allow Millard Gutter to coordinate with her insurer, Farmers Mutual, concerning reimbursement for repairs authorized under her insurance policy.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In ...
Qui Tam Case Without Evidence to Prove Fraud Fails
Post number 5369
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/qui-tam-insurer-contended-defrauded-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-pgfgc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5550 posts.
In People Of The State Of California Ex Rel. Heath & Yuen, APC v. Silver Bird Auto Leasing, LLC et al., B342847, California Court of Appeals, Second District, Eighth Division (June 5, 2026) Heath & Yuen, APC defended parties in an automobile collision case involving a McLaren and a tour van. After that case settled for $25,000, the firm filed a qui tam action under California’s Insurance Frauds Prevention Act (IFPA) against Silver Bird Auto Leasing, LLC, X-Law Group, PC, and Filippo Marchino. The firm alleged three fraudulent acts in the underlying litigation:
1. the complaint falsely stated the McLaren was making a “legal turn,”
2. respondents produced a fraudulent repair bill/estimate, and
3. respondents failed to disclose Marchino’s GEICO insurance and its payment for repairs....
Full Faith and Credit Act Controlled
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/evHXiiFE and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5368
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Prime Insurance Company, Inc. v. Medicab Transportation, LLC, Jason Rhodes, and Dale Johnson v. Prime Insurance Company, Inc and Prime Property & Casualty Insurance, Inc. No. 2:24-cv-421-SPC-KRH, United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division (June 3, 2026) Medicab, a paratransit company, bought two policies in 2021: a Business Auto Policy from PPCI and a Commercial Liability Policy from Prime. Both policies, as originally written, appeared to cover injuries arising from loading and unloading patients from Medicab vans.
After a patient, Margaret St. Aubin, fell while being unloaded from a van and suffered injuries, her Estate made a $1 million demand. Prime and its claims administrator concluded that the Commercial Policy’s loading/unloading language had been included by mutual mistake, because...
Full Faith and Credit Act Controlled
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/evHXiiFE and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5368
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Prime Insurance Company, Inc. v. Medicab Transportation, LLC, Jason Rhodes, and Dale Johnson v. Prime Insurance Company, Inc and Prime Property & Casualty Insurance, Inc. No. 2:24-cv-421-SPC-KRH, United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division (June 3, 2026) Medicab, a paratransit company, bought two policies in 2021: a Business Auto Policy from PPCI and a Commercial Liability Policy from Prime. Both policies, as originally written, appeared to cover injuries arising from loading and unloading patients from Medicab vans.
After a patient, Margaret St. Aubin, fell while being unloaded from a van and suffered injuries, her Estate made a $1 million demand. Prime and its claims administrator concluded that the Commercial Policy’s loading/unloading language had been included by mutual mistake, because...
