Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
SeanPaul Reyes v. City of New York
Date: 07-03-2025
Case Number: 1:23-cv-06369
Judge: Jessica G.L. Clarke
Court: United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York County)
Plaintiff's Attorney: Andrew Case
Defendant's Attorney: New York City Law Department
SeanPaul Reyes an injunction enjoining the inforcement of that part of a City Police Department policy forbidding video recording in police facilities under pain of arrest. Reyes claimed that the enforcement of the policy violates the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Does either N.Y. Civ. Rights Law § 79-p or N.Y.C. Admin. Code
§ 14-189 afford individuals such as plaintiff Reyes the right to
video record law enforcement activities inside public
facilities—specifically, inside the publicly accessible lobbies of
police stationhouses—notwithstanding a New York City Police
Department policy forbidding any video recording inside its
facilities?
About This Case
What was the outcome of SeanPaul Reyes v. City of New York?
The outcome was: Certification of the following question to the New York Court of Appeals: Does either N.Y. Civ. Rights Law § 79-p or N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 14-189 afford individuals such as plaintiff Reyes the right to video record law enforcement activities inside public facilities—specifically, inside the publicly accessible lobbies of police stationhouses—notwithstanding a New York City Police Department policy forbidding any video recording inside its facilities?
Which court heard SeanPaul Reyes v. City of New York?
This case was heard in United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York County), NY. The presiding judge was Jessica G.L. Clarke.
Who were the attorneys in SeanPaul Reyes v. City of New York?
Plaintiff's attorney: Andrew Case. Defendant's attorney: New York City Law Department.
When was SeanPaul Reyes v. City of New York decided?
This case was decided on July 3, 2025.