In a recent ruling, the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York decided on a case involving a former police officer and the City of Norwich. The court's decision, made on June 18, 2026, addresses claims of defamation, breach of contract, and emotional distress stemming from the officer's resignation and subsequent disqualification from law enforcement employment. This ruling has implications for how police departments handle misconduct allegations and settlements.
The case, Carpenter v. City of Norwich (CV-25-0097), centers around Justin Carpenter, a former officer with the Norwich Police Department (Norwich PD). Carpenter resigned in 2018 after settling several charges of misconduct. Following his resignation, he sought employment with both the City of Norwich and Chenango County but was disqualified due to his failure to disclose details of his misconduct settlement. This led Carpenter to file a lawsuit against the city, claiming breach of contract, defamation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
The case began when Carpenter attempted to challenge his disqualification through a legal proceeding known as a CPLR article 78, which was dismissed. Subsequently, he filed his lawsuit, asserting that the Norwich PD had wrongfully reported his resignation as being linked to misconduct. The defendants, including the City of Norwich, moved for summary judgment to dismiss Carpenter's claims. The Supreme Court partially granted this motion, dismissing some claims while allowing others to proceed. The defendants then appealed the decision.
In its ruling, the court addressed the three main claims made by Carpenter. The court found that there were triable issues of fact regarding Carpenter's claims of defamation, breach of contract, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Specifically, the court noted that Carpenter's defamation claim was based on a report made by the Norwich PD to the Department of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS), which stated that he had resigned while a disciplinary process was ongoing.
The court stated, "the statement conveyed by the March 2018 DCJS filing... would be false inasmuch as the disciplinary process against plaintiff had terminated with the withdrawal of his notice of termination under the stipulation prior to his resignation." However, the court also recognized that the defendants had a qualified privilege in making this statement, as it was part of their legal duty to report Carpenter's employment status.
Regarding the breach of contract claim, the court noted that the stipulation of settlement between Carpenter and the City required that certain information not be disclosed to prospective employers. The court ruled that the defendants had not breached this stipulation, as they had only provided limited information in response to inquiries about Carpenter's employment.
Judge Pritzker, along with Justices Clark, Aarons, McShan, and Ryba, concurred in the decision. The court ultimately modified the lower court's order by reversing the denial of the defendants' motion for summary judgment on Carpenter's first three causes of action, thereby granting the motion to dismiss those claims.
This ruling has significant implications for Carpenter and others in similar situations. It clarifies the responsibilities of police departments when reporting employment-related issues and the potential legal protections they have when disclosing information about former officers. The decision also emphasizes the importance of clearly defined terms in settlement agreements, particularly regarding confidentiality and the disclosure of misconduct.
Moving forward, this case may set a precedent for how law enforcement agencies handle misconduct allegations and the subsequent reporting of officer resignations. It highlights the need for transparency while balancing the rights of former officers seeking new employment. The ruling could influence future cases involving similar claims of defamation and breach of contract in the context of law enforcement.
As for what’s next, it remains unclear whether Carpenter will appeal the decision. His options may include seeking further review from a higher court or pursuing other legal avenues. There are no related cases pending that were mentioned in the court's opinion.