Detailed FOIL Request: Records Regarding Incident Involving NYPD Officer Daniel Calixte (Badge #863) and Associated Complaint (Ref: 202201119)

NOTICE: Please read this request carefully to fully understand its details and implications.

Date: 1/05/2024

New York City Police Department
Attn: Records Access Officer
One Police Plaza, Room 111C
New York, NY 10038

Subject: New York Freedom of Information Law Request –Detailed FOIL Request: Records Regarding Incident Involving NYPD Officer Daniel Calixte (Badge #863) and Associated Complaint (Ref: 202201119)

Dear Records Access Officer,

Under the provisions of the New York Freedom of Information Law (Public Officers Law §§ 84-90), I, Jordan Lassiter, am submitting a renewed request for access to and copies of records held by the New York City Police Department. This request pertains to an incident involving Officer Daniel Calixte, Badge #863, from the 63rd Precinct, related to the complaint number 202201119 as listed on 50-a.org, which occurred on December 15, 2021. This new request builds upon my previous request, referenced as FOIL-2023-056-07491, filed via MuckRock (link:https://www.muckrock.com/foi/new-york-city-17/police-records-regarding-incident-officer-daniel-calixte-badge-863-and-incident-case-number-202201119-144188/ ).

For this request, I seek the following records:

All Incident Reports: Related to Officer Daniel Calixte on December 15, 2021.
Case Law Support: Matter of Gould v. New York City Police Dept., 89 N.Y.2d 267 (1996).

Video/Audio Recordings: Including body-worn camera footage and dashcam recordings from Officer Calixte and other officers involved in the incident.
Case Law Support: Matter of Luongo v. Records Access Officer, 50 N.Y.2d 618 (1980).

Correspondence and Memos: Concerning the handling and investigation of the complaint against Officer Calixte.
Case Law Support: Matter of Capital Newspapers v. Burns, 67 N.Y.2d 562 (1986).

Internal Communications: Between officers and command regarding the incident involving Officer Calixte.
Case Law Support: West Harlem Business Group v. Empire State Development Corp., 13 N.Y.3d 882 (2009).

Complaint Records: Specific to complaint number 202201119 as listed on 50-a.org.
Case Law Support: New York Civil Liberties Union v. New York City Police Dept., 32 N.Y.3d 556 (2018).

Communications Regarding Previous FOIL Request: All internal communications, including emails and memos, related to the processing, review, and response to my previous FOIL request, FOIL-2023-056-07491.
Case Law Support: Matter of New York Times Co. v. City of New York Fire Dept., 4 N.Y.3d 477 (2005).

Should any portion of the requested records be deemed exempt from disclosure, I request the release of any reasonably segregable non-exempt portions. If an entire document is exempt, please provide a justification citing specific exemptions.

Please ensure no records potentially responsive to this request are destroyed. Any improper withholding, redaction, or destruction of records may be subject to litigation under the New York Freedom of Information Law.

Enclosed is a letter requesting a fee waiver for processing this request, as the information sought contributes significantly to public understanding of police conduct and accountability.

If there are potential charges exceeding $200 associated with fulfilling this request, please inform me in advance.

I anticipate your response within the statutory timeframe as outlined in the Freedom of Information Law.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

Jordan Lassiter

Enclosures:

Fee Waiver Request Letter
Screen Capture of the 50-a.org Listing
Screen Capture MuckRock FOIL-2023-056-07491

Please be aware: All communications related to this request, including incoming and outgoing communications, will be publicly available on muckrock.com. Additionally, any correspondence related to this request will be instantly published on the platform.

Appeal of FOIL Request FOIL-2024-056-00627
Date: March 18, 2025

To:
Records Access Officer
New York City Police Department
One Police Plaza, Room 111C
New York, NY 10038

Dear Records Access Officer,

I, Jordan Lassiter, respectfully submit this formal appeal regarding the delayed response to my Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) request (FOIL-2024-056-00627), submitted on January 5, 2024, for records related to an incident involving NYPD Officer Daniel Calixte (Badge #863) on December 15, 2021, and the associated complaint (Ref: 202201119). The statutory deadline for your response under FOIL was January 12, 2024, but as of March 18, 2025, I have not received a response, nor have I been notified of any further delays in processing.

I am invoking my right to appeal based on the following reasons:
1. Failure to Respond Within the Statutory Timeframe:
Under New York’s FOIL, an agency is required to respond to a request within five business days or, if an extension is necessary, to provide a written notice explaining the need for an extension (Public Officers Law § 89(3)). Your failure to provide a response or communicate an extension within the legal timeframe constitutes a clear violation of FOIL.
Case Law Support:
• Matter of Gould v. New York City Police Dept., 89 N.Y.2d 267 (1996) — An agency’s failure to respond within the statutory timeframe results in the requester having the right to appeal.
• Matter of New York Times Co. v. City of New York Fire Dept., 4 N.Y.3d 477 (2005) — Failure to issue a timely response mandates the release of records unless exempt under FOIL.
2. Failure to Communicate an Extension:
If an agency is unable to respond within the five-day period, it must issue a notice within that timeframe, explaining the reason for delay and the new expected date of response (Public Officers Law § 89(3)). To date, I have not received any such notification or an explanation of the delay.
3. Destruction or Withholding of Records:
I further request that you take immediate action to ensure that no records responsive to my request are destroyed. The deliberate withholding or destruction of responsive records is prohibited under FOIL.
Case Law Support:
• Matter of Capital Newspapers v. Burns, 67 N.Y.2d 562 (1986) — The Court held that records must be made available to the public unless specific exemptions apply. Any failure to comply with the law could result in judicial action.
4. Right to Seek Article 78 Proceeding:
In the event this appeal does not resolve the matter, I reserve the right to pursue Article 78 proceedings, seeking judicial review of the denial of access to the requested records, as per Matter of New York Civil Liberties Union v. New York City Police Dept., 32 N.Y.3d 556 (2018), which clarified that records related to police conduct and complaints should be disclosed unless clearly exempt.

I request a response to this appeal within the statutory timeframe, i.e., ten business days (Public Officers Law § 89(4)(a)), and ask that you expedite the processing of my original FOIL request or provide a detailed explanation for the delay.

Should you deny any portion of the requested records, I ask that you release all reasonably segregable non-exempt portions of the records. If an exemption is claimed, I request a specific justification for each exemption invoked, citing the corresponding sections of FOIL.

Thank you for your attention to this urgent matter. Please be advised that I will pursue further legal action, including an Article 78 proceeding, if necessary.

Sincerely,
Jordan Lassiter