Reyes v. City of New York

23-7640
Reyes v. City of New York

In the
United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit

AUGUST TERM 2024
No.
23-7640
S
EANPAUL REYES,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
C
ITY OF NEW YORK,
Defendant-Appellant.
__________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York
__________
A
RGUED: NOVEMBER 13, 2024
D
ECIDED: AUGUST 6, 2026
________________
Before:
KEARSE, RAGGI, and KAHN, Circuit Judges.
________________
On this appeal from the grant of a preliminary injunction in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
(Clark, J.), which prohibits the City of New York from enforcing a
policy forbidding video recording inside police facilities, the New

2

York Court of Appeals—in response to a question certified by this
court—has now ruled that state and city Right to Record laws do not
afford a right to video record law enforcement activities inside the
publicly accessible lobbies of police stationhouses. See Reyes v. City of
New York, --- N.E.3d ----, 2026 WL 1790855 (N.Y. 2026). This response
means the plaintiff cannot succeed on his claim that the challenged
policy violates these laws and, thus, that an injunction was wrongly
entered on that basis.
V
ACATED AND REMANDED.
_________________

C
HASE H. MECHANICK (Richard Dearing,
Claude S. Platton, on the brief) for Sylvia O.
Hinds-Radix, Corporation Counsel of the
City of New York, and Muriel Good-Trufant,
succeeding Acting Corporation Counsel of
the City of New York, New York, NY, for
Defendant-Appellant.
A
NDREW CASE (Meena Roldán Oberdick, on
the brief), LatinoJustice PRLDEF, New York,
NY, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Philip Desgranges, Shona Hemmady, The
Legal Aid Society, New York, NY, for
Amicus Curiae The
Legal Aid Society, in
support of Plaintiff-Appellee.
_________________

3

R
EENA RAGGI, Circuit Judge:
Plaintiff SeanPaul Reyes sued defendant City of New York
(“City”) in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York (Jessica G. L. Clarke, Judge) challenging that part of a
City Police Department (“NYPD”) policy forbidding video recording
inside police facilities (“Policy”) as violative of rights protected by the
First Amendment, see U.S. Const., amends. I, XIV; and New York State
and City Right to Record Acts (“RTRAs”), see N.Y. Civ. Rights Law
§ 79-p(2); N.Y.C. Admin Code § 14-189(b). On this appeal, the City
challenges a preliminary injunction entered on November 2, 2023, in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
(Jessica G. L. Clarke, Judge), that, upon finding it likely that Reyes
would succeed on his state and local (but not federal constitutional)
claims and would suffer irreparable harm, prohibited enforcement of
the challenged Policy and required the removal of any posted signs
stating the Policy. See Reyes v. City of New York, No. 23-CV-6369
(JGLC), 2023 WL 7212192 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 2, 2023).
After initial briefing and oral argument, this court concluded
that the determinative question on this appeal was one of state law,
i.e., whether “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?” Reyes v.

4

City of New York, 141 F.4th 55, 76 (2d Cir. 2025).
1
Because that question
had not yet been addressed by the New York Court of Appeals and
because its resolution might implicate value judgments and public
policy choices important to New York, we certified the question to the
New York Court of Appeals while we reserved decision in this
appeal. See id. at 75-76.
The New York Court of Appeals accepted our certified
question on September 16, 2025. See Reyes v. City of New York, 44
N.Y.3d 961, 961 (2025). After hearing further from the parties, that
court reformulated the certified question as follows: “Does either
N.Y. Civil Rights Law § 79–p or Administrative Code of the City of
New York §§ 14–189 afford individuals such as plaintiff Reyes the
right to video record law enforcement activities inside the publicly
accessible lobbies of police stationhouses?” Reyes v. City of New York,
--- N.E.3d ----, 2026 WL 1790855, at *2 (N.Y. 2026). And, in an opinion
filed June 23, 2026, it answered that question in the negative. Id.
By order dated July 10, 2026, this court invited the parties to
submit letter briefs as to the proper disposition of this appeal in light
of the New York Court of Appeals’ ruling. Specifically, the parties
were asked to indicate “whether any resolution of this appeal other
than vacatur of the preliminary injunction is warranted.” Reyes v. City
of New York, No. 23-7640, Dkt. 96. In their filings, both parties agreed
that the New York Court of Appeals’ ruling requires vacatur because

1
We assume familiarity with this opinion and the facts it details, which we
do not repeat here.

5

the preliminary injunction was based on an incorrect view of New
York law.
Accordingly, we hereby VACATE the November 2, 2023
district court order preliminarily enjoining enforcement of the
challenged Policy, and we REMAND for further proceedings
consistent with this opinion.
2

2
Insofar as the parties’ letter briefs discuss Reyes’s pending constitutional
claim or other points not at issue on this appeal, we express no view as to
how these might be resolved on remand.