Family Deli Mart Corp. and Omer Hidaise v. City of New York
Family Deli Mart Corp. and Omer Hidaise v. City of New York, Eric Adams, Mayor of the City of New York, individually and in his official capacity, Anthony Miranda, Sheriff of the City of New York, individually and in his official capacity, Philip Banks III, former Deputy Mayor for Public Safety of the City of New York, individually and in his official capacity, John M. Chell, Chief of Department and former Chief of Patrol of the New York City Police Department, individually and in his official capacity, Kaz Daughtry, Deputy Commissioner for Operations of the New York City Police Department, individually and in his official capacity, Francesca Rosa, Lieutenant with the Office of the New York City Sheriff, individually and in her official capacity, Michael Thorp, Sergeant with the Office of the New York City Sheriff, assigned Tax Number 592168, individually and in his official capacity, Taisha Acevedo, New York City Police Officer, assigned Tax Number 968913, individually and in her official capacity, Samuel Rosa, New York City Police Officer, assigned Tax Number 975145, individually and in his official capacity, Daniel V. Davila, Sergeant with the New York City Police Department, individually and in his official capacity.
- Vargas
- 1:25-cv-05739
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Family Deli Mart v. City of New York, Judge Vargas granted access to sealed arrest and police records for use in the civil-rights case.
The order affects Family Deli Mart Corp., Omer Hidais, the City of New York, the City’s Corporation Counsel and Police Department, and the two non-party individuals whose arrest-related records were unsealed. It permits the specified records to be used only in this federal action and requires confidentiality under the protective order.
What happened
Family Deli Mart Corp. and Omer Hidais sued New York City and other defendants over events connected to a July 16, 2024 inspection of the deli, including arrests of two non-parties. The parties said records from those arrests were relevant, but the records had been sealed after the charges were dismissed or sealed.
The court granted the defendants’ motion to unseal the records. It ordered the release of specified police body-camera recordings, arrest reports, and complaint reports for inspection, copying, and use in this federal case. The order also relieved the City and its Police Department from the state-law sealing requirements for records connected to the arrests and related criminal proceedings.
Judge Annette A. Vargas restricted use of the records to this civil-rights action and required the plaintiffs’ lawyers to protect them as confidential under the case’s protective order. The Clerk was directed to terminate the motion from the docket.
The detailed version
- Family Deli Mart Corp. and Omer Hidaise v. City of New York · No. 1:25-cv-05739
- Vargas
- Dec. 3, 2025
Background
Family Deli Mart Corp. was inspected by the New York City Sheriff’s Office on July 16, 2024, at 4011 East Tremont Avenue in the Bronx. The inspection resulted in an immediate closure order under New York State Cannabis Law § 138-b and New York City Administrative Code §§ 7-551 and 7-552. Two individuals were arrested during the inspection and sealing of the business. The opinion states that the individuals’ arrest records were sealed under New York Criminal Procedure Law §§ 160.50 and/or 160.55.
The parties represented that documents concerning those two non-parties’ arrests or prosecutions were relevant to this action. They also represented that the charges had been dismissed and sealed and that the records could not be obtained or produced without an order unsealing them.
Order
The court granted the defendants’ Motion to Unseal Records, ECF No. 76. The court ordered the unsealing of:
- all body-worn-camera recordings from New York City Police Department personnel involved in the July 16, 2024 inspection, the inventory or voucher of property, or the arrests at 4011 East Tremont Avenue; and - New York City Police Department Omniform System Arrest Reports and Complaint Reports, commonly called “UF 61” reports, for arrests at that location on that date that had been sealed under the cited state-law provisions.
The records were to be made available to Pardalis and Nohavicka, or their authorized representatives, and to Muriel Goode-Trufant, the City’s Corporation Counsel, or her authorized representatives, for inspection, photocopying, and use in this federal action.
The court further ordered that the City, including the Office of the Corporation Counsel and the Police Department, would not be bound by the state-law sealing requirements for documents relating to the arrests, detention, prosecution, or decision not to prosecute the non-party individuals, as well as related criminal proceedings.
Confidentiality and disposition
Use of the unsealed records was limited to this civil-rights action. The plaintiffs’ counsel was required to protect the records as confidential under the protective order entered in the case. The Clerk was directed to terminate ECF No. 76. This order addressed access to records and did not decide the underlying claims about the July 16, 2024 events.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.