On February 6, 2018 the New York State Court of Appeals, heard oral arguments in a first impression case, where the NYPD has the federal Glomar response to State FOIL requests. The case was heard by all seven justices of the Court. Arguing for Appellants Abdur-Rashid and Samir was Mr. Mohammedi, arguing for the City was an Assistant Corporation Counsel. Some pictures from the hearing can be found here.
On December 27, 2017, the New York City Council’s Black, Latino/a and Asian Caucus (BLAC) filed amicus curiae brief in support of our clients, Abdur-Rashid and Samir Hashmi in their FOIL litigation against the NYPD. The Caucus consists of twenty-four (24) duly elected members of the City Council who represent about nine (9) million New Yorkers. Caucus members bear the responsibility of protecting New Yorkers civil liberties, including those guaranteed under FOIL.
The Law Firm of Omar T. Mohammedi LLC, announces the filing of an appellate brief before the Unites States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, on behalf of its client the Islamic Community Center for Mid Westchester (“ICCMW”). The filing appeals the decision issued by the District Court dismissing ICCMW’s discrimination and violation of the Religious Land Uses and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”) case. ICCMW’s property was deliberately targeted for discrimination by the City of Yonkers. The City of Yonkers discriminatorily designated ICCMW’s property as a landmark to prevent ICCMW from using the property as a Mosque.
Law Firm of Omar T. Mohammedi, LLC, (“OTMLAW”) has filed its reply brief on behalf of Talib W. Abdur-Rashid and Samir Hashmi against the New York Police Department. The reply brief challenges both the NYPD’s use of the Glomar in Freedom of Information Law (“FOIL”) requests and the NYPD’s use of the Handschu Guidelines as a shield to conceal their violation of FOIL. The appeal is now fully briefed and is pending before the Court of Appeals. Oral arguments will be scheduled. Stay tuned.
This matter arises originally from a decision by the Respondents– Respondents, the New York Police Department (hereinafter referred to as “NYPD”) to deny two separate record requests by the Petitioners–Appellants (Talib W. Abdur-Rashid and Samir Hashmi) pursuant to the New York State Freedom of Information Law (New York State Public Officer Law (“POL”), Article 6, Sections 84-90) (hereafter referred to as “FOIL”).
Law Firm of Omar T. Mohammedi, LLC, (“OTMLAW”) is pleased to announce that an [Amici Curiae brief) (friend of the court brief) of 31 media organizations, including but not limited Bloomberg L.P. and Forbes, the New York Times, the Daily News and the Reporters Committee For the Freedom of the Press, is filed with the New York State Court of Appeals in support of OTMLAW’s appeal filed on February 20, 2017 on behalf Abdur-Rashid and Samir Hashmi against the New York Police Department (“NYPD”) in a surveillance and Freedom of Information Law (“FOIL”).
OTMLAW is pleased to announce that Ms. Hashem was handed the first victory in her lawsuit against Hunterdon Central Regional High School. Ms. Hashem filed her complaint last spring. In response to the Defendants’ motion to dismiss, the District Court sustained Sireen Hashem’s claims alleging employment discrimination, disparate treatment, retaliation (which included a false report to the FBI) and discriminatory discharge based on her race, religion and nation origin. Hashem v. Hunterdon, 2016 WL 5539590 (D.N.J. 9- 29-2016) Please view link to the order below.
On October 16, 2016, Judge Haigh, issued an Order rejecting the proposed settlement as “Not Fair and Reasonable” to protect the New York Muslim Community against the NYPD’s illegal surveillance. The Order was issued following a major opposition by the New York community against the weak provisions in the settlement proposal. In his decision, Judge Haigh referred to the brief OTMLAW submitted as well as the oral argument made requesting stronger provisions to protect the community, including its clients Iman Abdur-Rashid and Samir Hashmi. The two clients have related cases pending before the New York Court of Appeals. For more information, please links to the OTMLAW brief and the Judge’s Order.
Click here to view the application submitted to The New York State Court of Appeals.
The New York County Supreme Court on November 17, 2014 issued a decision stating that the New York Police Department cannot evade its obligations under the State Freedom of Information Law by invoking Glomar. The Court opined that undercover operatives or others providing confidential information to the police, are types of documents that are exempt from FOIL disclosure. Therefore, in order to invoke these exemptions, the law enforcement agency must first acknowledge the existence of documents.
[*1] Hashmi v New York City Police Dept. 2014 NY Slip Op 24357 Decided on November 17, 2014 Supreme Court, New York County Moulton, J. Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the printed Official Reports.
New York City Police Department, and RAYMOND KELLY in his official capacity as Commissioner of the New York City Police Department, Respondents. For a Judgment Pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules.
In this Article 78 proceeding petitioner Samir Hashmi seeks to obtain records from the New York City Police Department (“NYPD”) pursuant to the state’s Freedom of Information Law (Public Officers Law § 84 et. seq., commonly referred to as “FOIL”). The records sought in Hashmi’s October 2012 FOIL request pertain to alleged surveillance and investigation by the NYPD of Hashmi, and of the [*2]Rutgers University Muslim Student Association where he served as treasurer while enrolled as a student at Rutgers. The request was prompted by a series of newspaper articles by the Associated Press that concerned NYPD surveillance of various Muslim individuals, groups and Mosques in New York, New Jersey and Connecticut.
Information that might disclose non-routine law enforcement techniques, or reveal the identities of undercover operatives or others providing confidential information to the police, are types of documents that are specifically exempt from FOIL disclosure. (See POL §§ 87[e][iii], [iv].) However, in order to invoke these and other exemptions, FOIL provides that a law enforcement agency must first acknowledge the existence of responsive documents. Frequently, it is necessary for a court to conduct an in camera inspection of responsive documents for which an exemption is claimed in order to determine whether the agency has properly invoked that exemption.
Here the NYPD seeks to avoid that process on the ground that its mere acknowledgment of the existence of the documents sought by Hashmi would impair its ability to combat terrorism, even if the content of the documents would be exempt from disclosure under exceptions set forth in FOIL.
In making this argument the NYPD asks this court to adopt the Glomar doctrine, a common law exception to disclosure that federal courts have engrafted onto the federal Freedom of Information Act (5 USC § 552, commonly referred to as “FOIA”). The Glomar doctrine was first adopted in two cases involving FOIA requests that sought information about the CIA’s use of Howard Hughes’ salvage ship the “Glomar Explorer” in recovering a Soviet nuclear submarine. In Phillippi v CIA (546 F2d 1009 [D.C. Cir. 1976]) and Military Audit Project v Casey (656 F2d 724 [D.C. Cir. 1981]) the D.C. Circuit allowed the CIA and Department of Defense to neither confirm nor deny the existence of documents involving the use of the Glomar [*3]Explorer.
Before the court is respondents’ motion to dismiss the petition. As discussed at greater length below, respondents argue that this court should adopt the federal Glomar doctrine in evaluating Hashmi’s FOIL request and let stand the NYPD’s denial of petitioner’s request.
1. All records related to any investigation of Samir Hashmi, between 2006-2012, including the results of those investigations.
2. All records related to Samir Hashmi relied upon by the NYPD that led to any report being filed.
3. All records related to the surveillance of Samir Hashmi by the NYPD.
4. All records related and relied upon on the [*4]surveillance [sic] of Samir Hashmi used by the NYPD.
5. All directives and/or memoranda sent or received by the NYPD related to surveillance of Samir Hashmi from 2006-2012.
6. All directives and/or memoranda sent or received by the NYPD related to surveillance of the Rutgers Muslim Student Associations from 2006-2012.
7. All directives and/or memoranda sent or received by the NYPD related to the surveillance of Samir Hashmi, as Treasurer for Rutgers Muslim Student Association from 2006-2009.
In a letter dated November 13, 2012, a NYPD Records Access Officer acknowledged receipt of Hashmi’s request, and estimated that the department would respond in twenty business days.
More than six months later the NYPD denied Hashmi’s request in a letter dated June 28, 2013. The letter stated that Hashmi’s request did not include a certification of Hashmi’s identity. The NYPD also noted that Hashmi had not consented to the release of his records to his attorney.
1. Disclosure of the records would interfere with law enforcement investigations or pending judicial proceedings. POL § 87(2)(e)(i).
2. Disclosure of the records would identify a confidential source or confidential information relating to a criminal investigation. POL § 87(2)(e)(iii).
3. Disclosure of the records would reveal non-routine criminal investigative techniques or procedures. POL § 87(2)(e)(iv).
4. Disclosure of the records would endanger the life or safety of any person. POL § 87(2)(f).
5. Disclosure of the records would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. POL §§ 87(2)(b), 89(2)(b).
6. Disclosure of the records would reveal protected pre-decisional inter-agency or intra-agency materials. POL § 87(2)(g).
7. Disclosure of the records would violate state or federal statutes that specifically exempt such documents from disclosure. POL § 87(2)(a).
Hashmi took an administrative appeal of the NYPD’s denial. In a letter dated August 7, 2013, the Records Access Appeals Officer denied the appeal. The August 7th letter reiterated the objection that Hashmi’s identity had not been properly certified in the request. It also stated that the records requested had not been properly identified “in a matter that would evoke a path that could lead to the retrieval of responsive records with reasonable efforts.” The denial letter faulted, inter alia, the breadth of the records sought, and Hashmi’s failure to identify the NYPD unit that may have been involved in the alleged surveillance.
The NYPD’s primary reason for the denial was that the records sought, if they existed, would be exempt from disclosure under the FOIL provisions cited by the Records Access Officer that are set forth above. Consistent with its position in the instant motion to dismiss, the NYPD did not state whether or not it had any documents responsive to the request.
Hashmi brought this Article 78 proceeding to challenge the NYPD’s denial of the his FOIL request. Respondents moved to dismiss the petition. That motion is now before the court.
In general, FOIA’s procedures are similar to FOIL’s: an individual or entity submits requests to a government agency and receives one of three responses. First, the agency may identify responsive records and release them. Second, it may determine that [*6]there are no responsive records and inform the requester of that fact. Third, it may identify responsive records but determine that all or part of the records are exempt from disclosure under one of FOIA’s nine statutory exemptions, which are listed below. If an agency denies a FOIA request, there is the opportunity for administrative and then judicial review of the denial. In litigation, the defendant agency is typically required to provide the plaintiff requester with a detailed affidavit, called a Vaughn Index,[FN6] which describes the contents of each withheld document (while shielding exempt information) and explaining the statutory basis for its exemption. The Vaughn Index thus provides the plaintiff requester with some information to contest the agency’s basis for withholding documents or portions of documents, and allows the agency to carry its burden of proof. In camera inspection of the documents in question is often necessary to determine the validity of the claimed exemptions.
(3) specifically exempted from disclosure by statute (other than section 552b of this title), if that statute (A)(i) requires that the matters be withheld from the public in such a manner as to leave no discretion on the issue; or (ii) establishes particular criteria for withholding or refers to particular types of matters to be withheld; and (B) if enacted after the date of enactment of the OPEN FOIA Act of 2009, specifically cites to this paragraph.
Section 552(b) goes on to state that an agency should redact exempt information if it is “reasonably segregable” and produce the redacted document(s).
The NYPD argues that it must have the option of submitting a Glomar response to certain types of requests. Otherwise, the existence of its surveillance and other anti-terrorist strategies will be revealed and therefore undermined. While it would appear that details concerning surveillance techniques and strategies would almost certainly fall under one of FOIL’s law enforcement exemptions, and that therefore the content of those techniques and strategies and the identities of undercover agents would not be revealed, the NYPD asserts that it would be harmful to go through the usual FOIL procedure of vetting the claimed exemption. According to the NYPD the mere acknowledgment of documents concerning surveillance would reveal the targets and scope of its anti-terrorism surveillance operations. Individuals and entities could know whether or not they are the subject of surveillance and adjust their activities accordingly.
The NYPD also correctly points out that the Glomar doctrine is [*9]effective only where whole categories of requests receive Glomar responses, whether or not there are actually documents responsive to those categories of requests. For example, the doctrine is not effective if it is only invoked where there has been surveillance of the person or entity requesting information. Were the NYPD to invoke the Glomar doctrine only when it had responsive records that it wanted to conceal, and give a “no record” response when it had no such records (or a Vaughn Index when it was willing to at least acknowledge exempt records), then requesters would see a Glomar response as nothing more than a governmental admission that records exist which the government wants to cover up.
The NYPD emphasizes the urgency of its anti-terrorism initiatives by stating the undeniable fact that New York City is a terrorist target. Two lethal attacks on the World Trade Center, and other, thwarted acts of terrorism have confirmed that grim reality. The NYPD submits the affidavit of Thomas Galati, who is the Chief of Intelligence of the NYPD’s Intelligence Bureau. Chief Galati points to twenty-seven terrorist plots that law enforcement has disrupted since September 11, 2001. The NYPD argues that the individuals engaged in those plots could have found out if they were under surveillance by submitting a FOIL request. A response, even one that asserted an exemption that would suppress any detail about the surveillance, would still notify the individuals that they were being watched, and then cause them to alter their behavior to evade detection. The NYPD does not state whether it is aware of any instance of this use of FOIL by terrorists.
The NYPD urges this court to adopt Glomar just as federal courts have essentially as a common law amendment to a statutory scheme. It argues that just as Congress has never deemed it necessary to codify Glomar in FOIA, there is no prerequisite that the State Legislature do so in FOIL.
For the reasons stated below, the court disagrees and declines to adopt Glomar. The adoption would effect a profound change to a statutory scheme that has been finely calibrated by the legislature. Therefore, the decision to adopt the Glomar doctrine is one better left to the State Legislature, not to the Judiciary.
The insertion of the Glomar doctrine into FOIL would build an impregnable wall against disclosure of any information concerning the NYPD’s anti-terrorism activities. The wall would be created by the procedures used to vet a Glomar response, outlined above, which ensure that the decision to approve or deny a Glomar response is made with very little information, and with almost no useful input from the person or entity seeking the documents. A Glomar response virtually stifles an adversary proceeding.
Additionally, the Glomar doctrine has been shaped by more than thirty years of judicial precedent. It may be that the State Legislature would not choose to adopt wholesale that body of law. For example, the NYPD has indicated in its papers and at oral argument that it seeks a Glomar doctrine in state law that mimics the federal court’s very limited view of “public acknowledgment” waiver. As noted above under FOIA, an agency, or the executive, must publicly acknowledge the existence of responsive documents before a Glomar response can be defeated. Under this very narrow “public acknowledgment” doctrine, press reports and even governmental statements acknowledging the existence of a given program, are not sufficient to effect waiver of a Glomar response. Therefore, the extensive press reports — and book about the Muslim surveillance program, the mayoral candidates’ reactions to the program, and Mayor De Blasio’s well-publicized decision to disband the NYPD unit that had conducted the surveillance, all would be no impediment to the NYPD stating that it cannot confirm nor deny the existence of documents concerning the program. The legislature might strike a different balance on the question of waiver. Unlike a court, the legislature is not limited to the record presented by parties to a lawsuit.
Differences in the statutory exemptions listed in FOIA and FOIL also raise questions as to whether a judge should engraft the federal doctrine onto the state statute. In the vast majority of Glomar cases, the invocation of the doctrine is tethered to FOIA exemptions 1 and 3. FOIA exemption 1 protects “classified [*11]documents” designated by “Executive order.” Municipal governance does not include an analogous category of documents. FOIA exemption 3 relates to documents “specifically exempted from disclosure by statute.” FOIA exemption 3 is most often used in Glomar responses in conjunction with legislation that created the federal government’s national security apparatus. For example, two statutes frequently invoked in conjunction with exemption 3 in Glomar responses are the National Security Act of 1947, which exempts from disclosure “intelligence sources and methods,” (50 USC § 3024-1(i)(1)) and the Central Intelligence Agency Act of 1949, which requires the CIA director to protect intelligence sources or methods. These types of documents have no analogs in the NYPD’s own records.
Federal decisions exist that tether a Glomar response to FOIA exemption 7, which does have an analog in FOIL’s law enforcement exemptions. (See, eg, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals v National Institutes of Health, 745 F3d 535; Platsky v FBI, 547 Fed Appx 81.) However, the fact that the Glomar doctrine has arisen, and has been shaped, by the federal government’s preeminent role in “national defense [and] foreign policy” (5 USC § 552(b)(1)) casts doubt on whether a judge should apply the doctrine to the NYPD.
Since the September 11 attacks the NYPD has worked tirelessly in protecting New York City. This court’s decision does not reflect any judgment of the NYPD’s work. The court is instead concerned with oversight of governmental functions as embodied by FOIL. The legislature created FOIL to give New York’s citizens [*12]some insight into the functioning of their government. In doing so, it set up safeguards to protect against the disclosure of documents that could interfere with the proper operation of law enforcement. Engrafting the Glomar doctrine onto FOIL would change this balance between the need for disclosure and the need for secrecy. Secrecy is a necessary tool that can be used legitimately by government for law enforcement and national security, but also illegitimately to shield illegal or embarrassing activity from public view. It is a legislative function to write a statute that strikes a balance embodying society’s values.
For the reasons stated, respondents’ motion to dismiss is denied. Respondents shall answer the petition pursuant to CPLR 7804(f). This constitutes the decision and order of the court.
Footnote 1:Respondents’ Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Dismiss at 6.
Footnote 3:Affidavit of Samir Hashmi dated March 25, 2014, ¶ 19.
Footnote 4:Eg “Would a Democratic Mayor End the NYPD’s Muslim Surveillance Program?”, New York Magazine September 9, 2013.
Footnote 5:Eg “New York Drops Unit That Spied on Muslims,” New York Times April 15, 2014.
Footnote 6:Named for Vaughn v Rosen (484 F2d 820 [DC Cir. 1973]).
Footnote 7:Eg “With CIA Help, NYPD Moves Covertly in Muslim Areas” Associated Press, August 23, 2011; “Informant: NYPD Paid Me to “Bait” Muslims” Associated Press, October 23, 2012.
Footnote 8:For the reasons stated in this opinion, this court is not persuaded by Abdur-Rashid v New York City Police Dep’t, __ Misc 3d __, 992 NYS2d 870, which was recently decided in New York State Supreme Court.
The Law Firm of Omar T. Mohammedi, LLC defeats the Transit Authority’s (TA) Summary Judgment Motion and asserts Ms. Lewis’s civil rights in a prominent employment discrimination case two years following her death. In a resounding victory for Stephanie Lewis Judge Townes, the Eastern District of New York, found that there were overwhelming evidence that the TA discriminated against Ms. Lewis, Harassed her and treated her with disparity, retaliated against her, violated her freedom of religion and her First Amendment Rights and Unlawfully dismissed her.
The Law Firm of Omar T. Mohammedi, LLC currently represents various not-for-profit defendants in this $8 Trillion Multidistrict Litigation in the Southern District of New York.
OTMLAW defeated two motions to dismiss and five summary judgment motions on behalf of the six Imams to establish a major precedent protecting minorities from profiling, warrantless search, illegal detention, and false arrest and imprisonment based on the victims’ religious belief and practices, race and national origin. The precedent asserts the six Imams’ and other minorities’ rights under the Fourth, the Fifth and Sixth Amendment Rights.
OTMLAW successfully handled and settled a landmark $3 million case against the New York Police Department (NYPD) for the racial profiling and killing of an unarmed man, Amadou Diallo.The lawsuit was instrumental in initiating reform throughout the NYPD to prevent profiling against minorities in New York City.


§ 417-1 Findings and intent.
§ 417-5 Nontransferability and terms of license.
§ 417-6 Application for license.
§ 417-7 Investigation of applicant; issuance or denial of license; appeal.
§ 417-8 Revocation of license; hearing.
§ 417-9 License valid for one place of business only.
§ 417-10 Doing business at unlicensed premises.
§ 417-11 Record of transactions to be maintained.
§ 417-13 Minimum retention of articles.
Auctions and auctioneers — See Ch. 443.
Ferrous scrap — See Ch. 491.
Peddling and soliciting — See Ch. 408.
The Township Mayor and Council hereby find that there is a need to regulate and control the buying, selling, advertising and/or solicitation of gold, silver and precious or semiprecious gems or jewelry in order to prevent the easy disposal of items which have been unlawfully obtained as the result of crime while protecting and recognizing the legitimate businesses which are engaged in the buying and selling of gold, silver and precious or semiprecious gems or jewelry.
The Township Mayor and Council hereby find that there is a need to regulate and control the buying and selling of other metals such as aluminum, copper, magnesium and ferrous which have been unlawfully obtained as the result of crime while protecting and recognizing the legitimate businesses which are engaged in the buying and selling of such metals in accordance with N.J.S.A. 45:28-1 et seq. and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder.
The Township Mayor and Council hereby find that there is a need to regulate and control the buying, selling, advertising and/or solicitation of gift cards and secondhand goods which have been unlawfully obtained as the result of crime while protecting and recognizing the legitimate businesses which are engaged in the buying and selling of such cards and goods in accordance with N.J.S.A. 45:22-1 et seq. and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder.
It is the intent of this chapter to assist law enforcement officials and victims of crime in recovering those items identified in Subsections A, B, or C above by requiring reasonable reporting, maintenance and distribution criteria for buyers, dealers and transient buyers as defined in this chapter.
Acceptable forms of identification include: a current valid photo New Jersey driver's license or New Jersey identification card, a current valid photo driver's license issued by another US state, a valid United States passport, or other verifiable valid US government-issued photo identification with address. All of the above listed acceptable identifications require the dealer to capture/record evidence of the person's current address.
Any article of merchandise, including any portion of such article, whether a distinct part thereof or not, including every part thereof whether separable or not, and also including material for manufacture. This term shall also include the definition of "article" as the same that appears in N.J.S.A. 51:6-1, as that statute may be amended from time to time.
A computerized internet-capable database with hardware and software compliant with standards set by the Police Director.
A person or entity who is appointed or designated by the Police Director who is authorized to collect and maintain precious metal transaction information or other purchase information as defined herein, for the Township of Bloomfield.
Any business conducted intermittently within the Township of Bloomfield or at varying locations.
The Police Director of the Township of Bloomfield or his designee/representative.
Comprised of gold, silver, sterling, platinum and/or their alloys as defined in N.J.S.A. 51:5-1 et seq., N.J.S.A. 51:6-1 et seq. and/or N.J.S.A. 51:6A-1 et seq.; gems, gemstones, coins and all forms of jewelry herein contained. Not limited to those categories known as "diamonds, rubies, pearls and sapphires" and commonly called a "jewel."
Includes any exchange of gold, silver, precious or semiprecious metals or gems or jewelry, other metals, or secondhand goods as defined in this chapter for anything of value. A purchase or payment need not be made by way of money in order to constitute purchase for the purposes of this chapter. For purposes of this chapter a purchase may include an exchange, deposit, pledge, conveyance or trade of any tangible or intangible article.
The purchase of any used item as defined in § 417-1A and C.
Every transaction conducted by a dealer in which precious metals, or other tangible property, are purchased or exchanged from or with the public.
Any article previously sold, acquired, exchanged, conveyed, traded or otherwise formerly owned, including but not limited to scrap gold, old gold, silver, jewelry, home electronics/audio and visual equipment, musical instruments, computers, computer hardware and software, typewriters, word processors, scanners, sporting goods of all kinds, antiques, platinum, all other precious metals, tools of all kinds, televisions, DVRs, GPS, camcorders, car stereos, gift cards, cellphones, collectibles (for example, stamps, coins, comic book, sport memorabilia) other valuable articles or as listed in Appendix I.
Any person, partnership or corporation who or which, through any means, sells, transfers or offers by consignment gold, silver, precious or semiprecious metals or gems or jewelry or other metals as defined in this chapter.
A dealer who has not been in any retail business continuously for at least six months at that address in the municipality where the dealer is required to register or who intends to close out or discontinue all retail business in the Township of Bloomfield within six months. The term "transient buyer" will also include a dealer who intends to close out or discontinue all retail business in the Township of Bloomfield within six months; or as so defined in N.J.S.A. 51:6A-5 and N.J.A.C. 13:47C-1.1. Vendors doing business during a community event sponsored or sanctioned by the Township of Bloomfield shall not be considered a transient buyer for purposes of this chapter.
Editor's Note: Said appendix is on file in the Township offices.
No buyer or dealer shall engage in a regulated activity, as defined above, without having first obtained a license therefor from the Township Clerk, which license shall bear a number issued by the Township Clerk and shall be prominently displayed within the licensed premises. The requirement of a license shall apply to the buyer and/or dealer and to any individual employee who engages in a regulated activity on behalf of a buyer or dealer. Hereinafter the term "licensee" shall refer to a buyer, dealer, transient buyer, or to any individual employee who engages in a regulated activity on behalf of a buyer or dealer.
At the time of filing the application for a license, a nonrefundable license fee of $250 shall be paid for the annual license for the premises where the activity is to be conducted. Thereafter, the annual, nonrefundable renewal fee for the premises will be $250. Said license fee shall be in addition to any fee or cost associated with dealer's obligation to comply with § 417-11 of this chapter mandating the electronic reporting of all transactions.
A license issued under the provisions of this chapter shall not be transferable and shall terminate in one year after said license is issued, unless it is renewed in accordance with and pursuant to the provision of this chapter.
Proof that the licensee has obtained computer equipment and software required in § 417-11B of this chapter, for purposes of reporting all transaction data in electronic format to the Bloomfield Police Department.
Upon receipt of an application completed pursuant to this chapter, the Clerk shall refer the application to the Police Director or the Police Director's designee who shall arrange for the fingerprinting of the applicant and institute such investigation of the applicant's moral character and business responsibility as the Police Director deems necessary for the protection of the public welfare. In the event that the licensee is a business entity other than a sole proprietorship, the officers in a corporation or the partners in a partnership (or limited partnership) shall be deemed to be the applicant(s) who shall be fingerprinted and investigated according to this chapter. Upon completion of the investigation, the Police Director shall return the application or a copy thereof to the Clerk, accompanied by a recommendation as to whether the license should be issued or denied. Upon issuance of the license, the Clerk shall give the applicant a copy of this chapter.
If the recommendation of the Police Director is to deny the license, the grounds for the recommendation shall be stated in writing. Any person aggrieved by such denial may file a written appeal to the Township Mayor and Council through the Township Clerk within 15 days from the date of denial. This appeal may be perfected by service of a notice of appeal on the Township Clerk either personally or by certified mail. The Township Mayor and Council shall conduct a hearing on an appeal within 30 days of the Township Clerk's receipt of the filing of a notice of appeal, and a decision shall be rendered, in writing, on the appeal within 20 days of the close of the hearing. The Township Mayor and Council may confirm or reverse the denial as deemed advisable.
As to any applicant for a license under this chapter, the Police Department of the Township of Bloomfield shall, upon the initial application, conduct a full background investigation. With respect to subsequent renewals of the license, the Police Department shall conduct a background investigation by applicant's name, social security number and date of birth for the purpose of the annual renewal of said application.
Any license may be revoked by Township Mayor and Council for any violation of this chapter, in addition to any other penalty imposed for any violation. Any license may be revoked if the licensee has failed to pay any fee or charge properly imposed under the authority of this chapter. Upon any violation, the Township Mayor and Council may suspend a license upon written notice to the license holder. Upon receipt of the notice of suspension, the license holder may, within 10 days, file with the Township Clerk a written request for a hearing on the suspension before the Township Mayor and Council. The hearing shall be held within 30 days of the request, at which hearing the license holder shall have the opportunity to be heard. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Township Mayor and Council shall either revoke the license or shall reinstate the license. In the event that the license holder shall not request a hearing, the license shall be automatically revoked upon the expiration of 10 days after the notice of suspension has been given to the license holder.
Failure by the licensee to enter all transaction information set forth in § 417-11B(1) through (9) into the database within 24 hours after purchase, receiving for pawn, or receiving for consignment, any property, precious metals, metals, or secondhand goods as defined in § 417-1 or as described in Appendix I, from the public.
Failure by the licensee to properly maintain computer equipment in a reasonable fashion or failure by the licensee to replace faulty computer equipment such as is required under § 417-11C.
Failure by the licensee to admit to the premises during business hours any member of the Bloomfield Police Department or other sworn law enforcement officer acting in the performance of their duty or to permit such officer(s) to conduct an inspection or review of records or regulated activity in accordance with § 417-11E.
Conviction of an offense under the laws of the United States or any other state, which is substantially equivalent to the offenses named in Subsection B(4) or (5) above.
Record using a unique transaction number on a numbered receipt the name, address and telephone number of the purchaser; the name, address and telephone number of the seller or sellers; the time and date of the transaction; the net weight in terms of pounds Troy, pennyweight (Troy) or kilograms/grams of the precious metals; fineness in terms of karats for gold, and sterling or coin for silver, in accordance with N.J.S.A. 51:5-1 et seq. and N.J.S.A. 51:6-1 et seq., and any property containing a serial number. This information is to be documented through use of an electronic database software system as designated by the Police Director the information listed in § 417-11B(1) through (9). These records shall be subject to the inspection of any authorized police officer or any sworn law enforcement officer acting in the performance of their duty as set forth in Subsection E below.
Dealer shall be responsible for any and all costs associated with purchasing, maintaining and updating the electronic database software system, as well as any annual licensing or subscription fees. Said licensing and/or subscription fees associated with the electronic database software system shall be in addition to any other fees or costs required under this chapter.
Require each seller to execute a declaration of ownership, which shall contain the following certification: "My signature confirms that I am the sole legal owner of and am legally authorized to sell the goods being sold. By signing below I certify that I did not obtain and do not possess the identified goods through unlawful means. I am the full age of 18 years old and the identification presented is valid and correct."
In the event of a database failure, or dealer's computer equipment malfunction, all transaction information is required to be submitted on paper forms approved by the Police Director within 24 hours from the date of purchase. In the event that paper forms are used, the dealer is responsible to enter all transaction information set forth in § 417-11B(1) through (9) into the database as soon as possible upon the dealer's equipment being repaired or replaced, or the database coming back into service. Failure by the dealer to properly maintain computer equipment in a reasonable fashion, or failure by the dealer to replace faulty computer equipment, may result in the dealer being cited for a violation of this chapter and subsequently being subject to the penalties for doing so including revocation of the dealer's license under § 417-8.
Dealer payment to sellers in cash shall be limited to two transactions during a seven-day period for the same seller. The seven-day period will commence on the day of the first transaction and end seven days after the transaction; i.e., if transaction No. 1 occurs on Monday, the seven-day period ends on Sunday. Furthermore, no cash payments shall be made to the same sellers who make more than five transactions in any given thirty-day period. Sellers making transactions over the number of proscribed weekly and monthly periods will be paid by the dealer by means of a bank check drawn from the dealer's business account.
It shall be the requisite duty of every dealer, and of every person in the dealer's employ, to admit to the premises during business hours any member of the Bloomfield Police Department or other sworn law enforcement officer acting in the performance of their duty to examine any database, book, ledger, or any other record on the premises relating to the purchase, receiving for pawn, or receiving for consignment, any property, precious metals, other metals, or secondhand goods as defined in § 417-1 or as described in Appendix I, from the public. Bloomfield Police Officers or other law enforcement officers acting in the performance of their duty are empowered to take possession of any article known by the police officer or official to be missing or to have been stolen, or where the officer or official has reasonable suspicion to believe the article is missing or stolen. A receipt will be provided to the dealer for any property seized by the Bloomfield Police Department or other law enforcement officer.
A licensee shall not engage in regulated activity with any person under the age of 18 years, unless such minor is accompanied by a parent or guardian and said parent or guardian gives specific written consent to the transaction and acknowledges the receipt required by the buyer to be given to the seller. A licensee shall not engage in regulated activity with any individual who is in an intoxicated state and/or is under the influence of intoxicating liquor, narcotics or hallucinogenic or habit-producing drugs.
All property purchased, received for pawn, or received for consignment, precious metals, other metals, or secondhand goods as defined in § 417-1 or as described in Appendix I, from the public, are to be made available for inspection by the Police Director or any member of the Bloomfield Police Department or other law enforcement officer acting in the performance of their duty for a period of 15 days from the date the transaction information is reported to the Police Director in accordance with § 417-11 above. All property, precious metals, other metals, secondhand goods as defined in § 417-1 or as described in Appendix I shall remain in the same condition as when purchased and shall not be sold or disposed of, changed, modified, or melted by the purchaser until the fifteen-day retention period has expired. During this fifteen-day retention period, all property, precious metals, other metals, secondhand goods as defined in § 417-1 or as described in Appendix I shall be placed in public view (during normal business hours) at the licensed location where the transaction occurred between licensee and seller.


We are in business relationship with you because you communicated with one of the following companies: SomeDeal Kft. (seat: 1027 Budapest, Varsányi Irén utca 8. fszt.;), Immobilie Best Kft. (seat: 1184 Budapest, Aranyeső utca 8.), Szitu Kft. (seat: 1097 Budapest, Nádasdy utca 10. 5. em. 505.), Credit Consilium Kft. (seat: 2000 Szentendre, Kondor Béla utca 28. B. lház. II. em. 14.), Ingatlan-Galéria Kft. (seat: 1149 Budapest, Róna u. 109. 4. em. 9.), Bent Ray Marketing és Pénzügyi Tanácsadó Kft. (seat: 1138 Budapest, Meder utca 8. B épület 5. em. 2.), KIPEX Kft. (seat: 1037 Budapest, Bécsi út 52.) (one or more of these companies respectively or jointly: Sales company or Sales companies) as realtors concerning the purchase of real properties presented on the metrodom.hu website (hereinafter: Website) of Metrodom Kft. (seat: 1095 Budapest, Mester utca 83/C fszt. CÜ3.) or of the affiliated project companies that are offering the real properties for sale (hereinafter jointly: Metrodom).
The Sales company as data controller states that it is a legal entity established in Hungary and acts as a realtor concerning the sale of the real properties and concerning the business activity of Metrodom. MTDM Kft. as data controller states that it is a legal entity established in Hungary and acts as a contact point concerning the sale and purchase contracts concluded or to be concluded concerning the real properties offered by Metrodom (hereinafter: Contract), furthermore based on a separate legal relationship it acts as a data processor of Metrodom.
The legal relationship between You and the Data controllers comes into existence when You indicate your interest for the conclusion of the Contract for the first time (by submitting your personal data detailed in this Policy. During the contracting process you provide your voluntary, explicit and definite consent based on proper information for the processing of your personal data after you became familiar with this Policy.
By accepting this Policy, you consent to the processing of your personal data and you verify this by signing a separate declaration. Upon the acceptance of the Policy and thereafter, the Data controller requires certain personal data. The data processing activities and the legal ground are detailed in this policy for each contracting step, however, the Data controllers are entitled to process some of your personal data already prior to the acceptance of this Policy for the purposes of contracting at your request.
The purpose of this Policy is to describe the principles and purposes of the data processing and other rights and obligations in line with the applicable laws that set out the purpose of the processing of your personal data, the duration and the methods of the processing and also your enforcement rights and remedies concerning the data processing.
The security and adequate processing of your personal data submitted to us is extremely important for us, therefore please read this Policy carefully and attentively. Should you have any questions or remarks concerning this Policy, then please do not hesitate to contact us before accepting the Policy at the e-mail address info@metrodom.hu and our colleagues are ready to assist you.
Please find below a summary of the most important terms used in this Policy.
1. Application: The Metrodom Sales 3D application that is made available by the Data controllers only on personal request (at events, promotions, personal consultations) through which Data subjects are able to view virtually the floor plan and 3D model of the concerned real property.
2. Activities of the data processor: any activities on personal data concerning data processing actions that are carried out on behalf of the Data controller, irrespective of the method or tool used for the execution and irrespective of the location of the application provided that these activities are performed on personal data. Accordingly, data processors are such natural or legal persons, authorities, agency and other bodies that process personal data on behalf of data controller.
3. Data processing: any operation or set of operations on personal data, irrespective of the method, including especially collection, recording, organization, storage, alteration, use, query, transfer, publication, alignment or combination, blocking, erasure or deletion and the hindering of the further use of the data.
4. Áfatv.: Act no. CXXVII of 2007 on value-added tax.
5. Data subject: each and every identified or identifiable natural person who enters into business relationship with the Data controllers in the course of which the Data subject provides his/her personal data detailed in this Policy.
6. Website: www.metrodom.hu operated by the Data controller.
7. Data controllers: the data provided by the Data subject are processed by the Data controllers, i.e. only the controllers are entitled to make decisions and execute same concerning the personal data of the Data subjects. Furthermore Data controllers act as the data processors of Metrodom as recipient.
Data controllers qualify as joint data controllers based on the liability scheme detailed in this Policy. The Data controllers are subject to Pmt., taking into consideration that they carry out activities for the intermediation of the transfer of real properties.
Seat and mailing address: 1027 Budapest, Varsányi Irén utca 8. fszt.
Seat and mailing address: 1184 Budapest, Aranyeső u. 8.
Seat and mailing address: 1097 Budapest, Nádasdy utca 10. 5. em. 505.
Seat and mailing address: 2000 Szentendre, Kondor Béla utca 28. B. lház. II. em. 14.
Seat and mailing address: 1149 Budapest, Róna u. 109. 4. em. 9.
Bent Ray Marketing és Pénzügyi Tanácsadó Kft.
Seat and mailing address: 1138 Budapest, Meder utca 8. B épület 5. em. 2.
Seat and mailing address: 1037 Budapest, Bécsi út 52.
Seat and mailing address: 1095 Budapest, Mester utca 83/C Cü3.
8. Supervising authority: the National Data Protection and Freedom of Information Authority (Nemzeti Adatvédelmi és Információszabadság Hatóság, address: 1125 Budapest, Szilágyi Erzsébet fasor 22/c.; e-mail: ugyfelszolgalat@naih.hu; Website: http://naih.hu; phone: +36 (1) 391-1400).
9. Inytv.: Act no. CXLI of 1997 on the real estate registry.
10. Pmt.: Act no. LIII of 2017 on the prevention and combatting of money laundering and financing of terrorism.
11. Grt.: Act no. XLVIII of 2008 on the basic conditions and certain limitations of advertising.
12. GDPR: Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Commission on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation).
13. Personal data: personal data submitted by the Data subject. It includes data that relates to the Data subject, furthermore the conclusion that can be drawn regarding the Data subject based on the data. Information requested during the communication between Data subject and the Data controllers qualify as personal data.
14. Szt.: Act no. C of 2000 on accountancy.
16. Shop premises: Any office of the Data controller open for the public for personal enquiries.
17. Contract: A sale and purchase contract concluded by the Data subject and one of Metrodom’s affiliated project companies regarding the real properties offered by Metrodom for sale (including sale and purchase pre-contracts, as well).
19. Data controllers distributed their joint liability concerning the rights and obligations deriving from this Policy among themselves in their separate joint data controller agreement. The most important stipulations of this agreement are summarized in this chapter. This way the Data controllers have properly informed the Data subjects. By accepting this Policy the Data subject acknowledges and recognizes that the contents of the agreement between the Data controllers was made available to the Data subject.
20. The Data subject is entitled to exercise the rights deriving from the laws or from this Policy concerning the data processing in relation to any of the Data controllers and any of the Data controllers is entitled to exercise the rights set out in this Policy. An exception to the above is when some of the rights and obligations pertains specifically to one of the data controllers according to this Policy.
21. Data controllers state that they are jointly and severally entitled to exercise their rights and obliged to fulfil their obligations deriving from this Policy, unless otherwise stipulated in this Policy.
22. The purpose of the Data controllers is to summarize the steps of the contracting process in this chapter. The specific legal grounds for the data processing activities may vary from step to step as follows.
a) The contracting process commences upon the enquiry of the Data subject. The enquiry may take place on the phone, in e-mail or by booking an appointment through the “Interested” link on the Website. In their reply the Data controllers bring the attention of the Data subject to the fact that certain personal data (name, e-mail address, phone number) are recorded to ensure their availability in the database as the Data subject initiated the contact with the Data controllers towards the conclusion of the Contract.
b) The second step of the contracting process is that the Data controllers contact the Data subject at one of his/her contact details for further discussion, if the Data subject requested this.
c) Prior to the conclusion of the Contract the Data controllers require the Data subject to submit a form containing the personal data detailed in this Policy for the purpose of contracting and for the carrying out of the customer due diligence measures regulated in § 6 of Pmt. with a view to the established legal relationship.
23. Data controllers state that during steps a-b) of the above process certain personal data (name, e-mail, phone number) are processed in relation to the Data subject. The legal ground of this data processing is the Data subject’s request that takes place prior to the conclusion of the Contract and that is necessary for further steps in line with Article 6(1) Item b) GDPR.
24. Data controllers enable the Data subject already prior to the contracting process to become familiar with this Policy. For this purpose Data controllers undertake to publish this Policy, as amended from time to time, on the Website.
Please find below a summary of the data processing principles that Data controllers undertake to fully comply with throughout the duration of the data processing.
25. Lawfulness, fairness and transparency: Regarding the data processing purposes, the Data controllers collect the personal data directly from the Data subject. The processing of the Data subject’s personal data takes place in a lawful and fair manner that is transparent for the Data subject. Data controllers make the Policy, as amended from time to time, (and the earlier versions) available free of any charge or obligation, continuously, in such way that it is accessible for the public (downloadable in PDF format) on the Website and in the Shop premises for review. Data controllers do not process the personal data in any unlawful way or for purposes beyond this policy and they will carry out the data processing activities always in line with this policy and the applicable laws.
26. Purpose limitation: Data controllers process the personal data only for the clear and lawful purposes detailed in the Policy. Processing of the submitted personal data for other purposes require that Data controllers comprehensively inform the Data subject about this in advance (primarily through e-mail). For the comprehensibility of the specific data processing purposes Data controllers provide information in this policy about the purpose, duration and legal ground of the processing of the specific personal data. Data controllers implement these rules mandatorily.
27. Storage limitation: Data controllers provide the storage of the personal data of the Data subject in such way that enable the identification of the data subjects only for the period of time necessary for the fulfilment of the purposes of the processing. Pursuant to Article 6(1) Item a) GDPR the personal data processed on the basis of the explicit and voluntary consent of the Data subject will be kept by the Data controllers until the revocation of the consent by the Data subject or until his/her request for deletion.
Data controllers are obliged to keep the collected personal data pursuant to § 7 of Pmt. for a period of 8 years from the termination of the business relationship detailed in § 1(1) Item f) Pmt. between the Data subject and the Data controller in line with § 56(1) Pmt. All other personal data beyond the scope of § 7 Pmt., the processing of which takes place for a different purpose, may be retained by Data controllers for the following periods of time determined specifically for each data processing purpose.
a) Regarding Data controllers, business relationship shall mean the legal relationship between the Data controllers and the Data subject for the services professionally provided by the Data controller (namely activities concerning real property transactions as detailed in § 1(1) Item f) Pmt.).
b) Data controllers may have to retain the personal data in line with § 28(1) Pmt. at the request of the tax authority, the financial supervising authority, the investigating authority, the prosecutor’s office or of the courts for the period set out in the request but up to 10 years at the most (§ 58(1) Pmt.).
The 8-year retention period may only be extended at the request of the authorities if the data or document is necessary for a pending or a future proceeding of the authority. After the final completion of this proceeding of the authority or after the frustration of the planned proceeding, Data controllers are to delete the personal data from their records (§ 58(2)-(3) Pmt.).
If no Contract was concluded between the Data subject and the Data controller during the steps of the chapter „Contracting process”, then the Data controller processes the submitted personal data for a period of 2 years from the first date of contact.
28. Data minimisation: Data controllers intend to restrict the scope of data to the most relevant and crucial personal data concerning each data processing purpose. These are personal data that are necessary for the specific data processing purposes as follows. Data controllers will act in line with this policy if more data is requested from the Data subject than detailed in this Policy.
29. Accuracy: Data controller intend to ensure that the personal data recorded concerning the data processing purposes are up-to-date and accurate and Data controllers take all reasonable steps for this purpose. This purpose is necessary because of the following: e.g. the Data subject will not receive a newsletter sent to a non-existing e-mail address so there is no point sending the newsletter. The Data subjects can contribute to the up-to-date nature of the data by reporting changes in the data or correcting the submitted data.
d) if data are recorded on paper documents, then the data shall be stored in such places closed to the public where unauthorized persons cannot access the data.
In this chapter the data processing purposes and cases are described where the personal data of the Data subject are actually processed in practice. Data controllers act jointly with joint and severe liability concerning the following data processing activities with common infrastructure, unless otherwise contained in this Policy.
31. Database concerning contracting steps and contracting: The Data subject can initiate the contracting steps in accordance with the steps detailed in the chapter „Contracting process” and the Contract will be concluded as detailed therein. As long as the Contract is not concluded between the Data subject and the Data controllers regarding steps a-b) detailed in chapter „Contracting process”, the Data controllers process the following personal data for communication purposes: name, e-mail address, phone number.
The purpose of this data processing on one hand is the communication with the Data subject for the contracting, the sending of the requested offers and the registration of the Data subject who already requested an offer in the database, so that the Data subjects can be assigned to the competent Sales company.
The legal ground of the data processing is Article 6(1) Item b) GDPR, i.e. the steps towards contracting at the request of the Data subject. If no Contract is concluded within 2 years from the submission of the personal data of the Data subject, then the Data controllers stop processing the personal data for this data processing purpose.
Data controllers act jointly concerning the above data processing prior to the conclusion of the Contract.
If the Contract is entered into by Data subject as buyer and Metrodom as seller, then the Data controllers as the data processors of Metrodom process the personal data on one hand for the preparation of the Contract and for the fulfilment of the full-scope management and data storage obligations after the conclusion of the Contract, based on the legal ground of the legal obligation or the fulfilment of the Contract. Data controllers process the personal data submitted by the Data subjects during the contracting for the preparation, execution of the sale and purchase contracts concluded between Metrodom and the Data subject and for additional formal activities (e.g. report of warranty claims) for the purpose of database creation by Data controllers.
The legal ground of this data processing is Article 6(1) Item b) GDPR (contracting) on one hand and on the other hand Article 6(1) Item c) GDPR - legal obligation, with a view that according to § 32(1) Inytv. the Contract and the request concerning changes in the land registry must contain the following personal data: personal particulars of the Data subject (name, birth name, maiden name of mother, place and date of birth, home address, tax identification number, ID card/passport number, personal number), data of the real property (municipality name, lot number), nationality.
For the purposes of the fulfilment of the Contract, Data controllers may process further pieces of information depending on the requests and services ordered by the Data subject that might be the following: bank account number; notification address; e-mail address, name of statutory representatives, information and conclusions from the concluded Contract, workplace, data of another real property sold within 1-3 years, e-mail address, phone number, notification address.
The legal ground of the processing of these personal data is the fulfilment of the Contract (Article 6(1) Item b) GDPR.
Furthermore, Data controllers process the name and home address of the Data subject according to Article 6(1) Item c) GDPR, based on a legal obligation for invoicing purposes concerning the transaction that is prescribed by § 169 Item e) Áfatv.
The retention period of these personal data shall be 8 years pursuant to § 169 (1) and (2).
MTDM Management Kft. acts as a data processor of Metrodom concerning this data processing after the contracting.
32. Customer due diligence: The purpose of the data processing, in line with § 7 Pmt. is the customer due diligence. Data controllers process the following personal data for the fulfilment of their legal obligations upon the creation of the business relationship described in § 6(1) Pmt. pursuant to Article 6(1) Item c) GDPR as mandatory data processing.
i. in the case of natural persons: given name and surname; birth name; place and date of birth; maiden name of mother; home address (or temporary residence in lack thereof); nationality; type and number of identification document; Hungarian place of residence in the case of foreign Data subjects (§ 7(2) Item a) Pmt.).
ii. in the case of legal persons: name; short name; seat; address of the Hungarian branch in the case of a foreign undertaking; company registry number for entities registered in the court registry, in the case of other entities the number of the founding decision (registration, establishment) or its registry number; main business activity; names and positions of the signatories; identification data of the delivery proxies (§ 7(2) Item b) Pmt.).
Data controllers retain the above data collected pursuant to § 7 Pmt. from the start of legal obligation for 8 years from the termination of the business relationship between the Data subject and Metrodom.
33. Client relations: The purpose of the Data controllers concerning the data processing for client relations is to ensure the following: data collection prior or after the contracting, necessary for the creation, preparation, fulfilment and execution of the Contract, notifications, administration and the communication (especially technical discussions, credit administration, administration concerning the authorities and public utility service providers) among the Data controllers or Recipients and the Data subject concerning the business relationship between the Data subject and the Data controllers, furthermore the fulfilment of certain legal obligations (especially guarantee obligations).
The scope of personal data processed for client communication: name; home address; notification address; e-mail address; phone number.
The processing of the above personal data is based on Article 6(1) Item b) GDPR for the exercising of rights and fulfilment of obligations deriving from the Contract. The retention period depends on the period of the statute of limitation of the respective contractual obligations.
Data controllers are entitled to carry out this kind of data processing jointly.
34. Application: The Data subject may use the Application during the personal meeting with the Sales company the Data subject contacted for contracting purposes, on the device operated by the Sales company. The Data subject can view the floor plan and rooms of the chosen real property virtually. If the Data subject so wishes, s/he can request the sending of the virtual floor plan by providing his/her e-mail address. In this case the Application sends the floor plan directly to the e-mail address.
The scope of personal data processed concerning this data processing purpose: e-mail address.
The legal ground of the data processing is Article 6(1) Item b) GDPR, namely the preparation of the contracting steps at the request of the Data subject.
The personal data will be processed by the Sales companies only for the above purpose.
35. Database processed for newsletter sending: The Data subject, pursuant to § 6 Grt. may consent in an explicit statement that the Data controllers contact the Data subject directly in electronic newsletters for advertising purposes and with a catalogue after the conclusion of the Contract. Data controllers may send newsletters only to those Data subjects who provided the additional consent. The specific consent may be given in person in the Shop premises or on the Website by clicking the checkbox.
The purpose of the Data controllers concerning the sending of the newsletter and the catalogue is to inform the Data subjects about Metrodom’s services and new investments and to promote these. The Data subject may revoke the specific consent at any time without restriction or reasoning, free of charge by sending an e-mail to marketing@metrodom.hu. After the receipt of the revocation, Data controllers are not entitled to send more newsletters. Personal data to be given concerning the newsletter as a specific data processing purpose: name; e-mail address; mailing address.
The Data subject provides a specific consent for data processing purpose, therefore the legal ground for this data processing is Article 6(1) Item a) GDPR and will last until the revocation of the consent.
Regarding this data processing purpose, only the Sales companies are entitled to carry out the processing among the Data controllers.
36. Data controllers may transfer the below detailed Personal data based on the consent of the Data subject concerning this Policy and only in the extent and for the persons detailed in this chapter. Data controllers keep a registry of the data transfers.
37. Data controllers are entitled to transfer Personal data to the project companies affiliated to Metrodom with which Data subject intends to conclude the Contract. The purpose of the data transfer is to enable the company affiliated to Metrodom as Recipient to receive the personal data that the Contract to be concluded with the Data subject should contain.
The scope of the personal data is as follows: name; birth name; maiden name of mother; place and date of birth; home address; personal identification number, nationality, ID card number; tax identification number; bank account number; notification address; e-mail address; communication with the contracting party and its representative, if any, information concerning the concluded Contract, workplace, information on other real property sold within 1-3 years.
38. Data controllers are entitled to transfer the Personal data during the contracting process in which the Data subject is involved, to the credit institute chosen for the financing of the purchase price to ensure the smooth arrangement of the fulfilment of the Contract by the Data subject with the inclusion of the bank or other external resources. This includes especially the data transfers necessary for credit administration, for the requesting of the Home Founding Allowance for Families (CSOK) and for other banking services.
Data controllers may transfer the following personal data concerning the data transfer detailed in this paragraph to third persons: name; birth name; maiden name of mother; place and date of birth; home address; personal identification number; ID card number; tax identification number; bank account number; notification address; e-mail address; the real property chosen by the Data subject.
39. Data controllers are entitled to transfer the personal data of the Data subject detailed in this paragraph to the third persons that are entitled to manage the condominium house in which the Data subject purchases the real property pursuant to the Contract.
With this data transfer the Data controllers hand over the list of residents to the person managing the house that contains the following personal data of the Data subject: name; home address; real property purchased with the Contract; e-mail contact, notification address.
40. Data controllers are entitled to transfer the following personal data for the arrangement of the legal tasks concerning the preparation and execution of the Contract to the Szabó, Kocsis and Partner Law Firm (seat: 1095 Budapest, Mester utca 83/A. IX. em. 4. a.) representing both parties in the transaction: name; birth name; maiden name of mother; place and date of birth; home address; personal identification number; ID card number; tax identification number; bank account number; notification address; e-mail address; the real property chosen by the Data subject; communication with the contracting party and their representative, if any concerning the Contract, phone.
41. Data controllers are entitled to transfer the personal data of the Data subject detailed in this paragraph to the Sales companies detailed in Section 2 of this Policy that do not qualify as data controllers in respect to the Data subject in the given legal relationship. The purpose of this data transfer is to enable the Sales companies detailed in this paragraph to view the database of the clients of the Data controller that acted as a sale company concerning a Contract when using the joint database.
The scope of transferred personal data if no Contract is concluded: name, phone number, e-mail.
The scope of transferred personal data after the conclusion of the Contract: name; birth name; maiden name of mother; place and date of birth; home address; personal identification number, nationality, ID card number; tax identification number; bank account number; passport number; notification address; e-mail address; information and conclusions from the concluded Contract, workplace, information on other real property sold within 1-3 years.
42. Data controllers are entitled to transfer the personal data detailed in this paragraph to the Metrodom Kivitelező Kft. and to Metrodom Építő Kft. carrying out the realization of the real property sold by Metrodom, to COPM Kft. that is responsible for technical consultation for the purposes of the fulfilment of the Contract, including the arrangement of the technical consultations, reporting of guarantee claims, performance of additional work and the enforcement of guarantee rights, furthermore the delivery process of the real property to the Data subject as buyer.
The scope of transferred Personal data: name; e-mail; phone; mailing address; bank account number; address of the real property purchased from Metrodom with the Contract.
43. Any of the Data controllers is entitled to make these data transfers detailed in this chapter.
44. Data controllers record video for the protection of the persons and assets of the Data subjects and for the protection of the Shop premises by applying a surveillance camera system. The recording as a data processing purpose is justified by the legitimate interests of the Data controller and of the Data subjects concerning the protection of the persons and assets. The ground for the application of the surveillance system is to ensure the protection of the assets in the Shop premises, the valuables of the Data subjects, the monitoring of the real property for asset protection purposes and for the security of the persons in the Shop premises. For these security purposes the Data controller placed warning signs in prominent places, at the entrance of the Shop and also inside the Shop premises in the concerned rooms about the camera recording. The cameras are set in such angles that only such persons are recorded with whom the Data controller has a relevant business relationship regarding its services (including persons requesting offers or interested in a transaction). Thanks to the signs, the Data subjects can expect in which areas video recordings are made and can be familiar with the purposes. Data controller provides the rights and guarantees detailed in the chapter “right enforcement and remedies” concerning this data processing for the Data subjects.
The camera recordings are stored for the period set out by Szvtv. and the recordings may be used only in the case of events threatening the security of persons or assets, in the extent necessary for the proceedings of the authorities or courts. Otherwise the recordings will be deleted after the expiry of the period detailed in Szvtv. Data controller stores the recordings only for the duration detailed in Szvtv. and only in digital format and then the recordings are deleted. The cameras may record only such areas that are in line with the given security purpose and the camera recording shall not breach human dignity. No cameras are installed in the bathrooms and no hidden cameras are used. Data controller does not transfer the recordings to third persons (except for cases regulated in the laws).
The legal ground for the camera recoding as a specific data processing action shall be the legitimate interest of the Data controller and of the Data subject with a view to the security of persons and assets [Article 6(1) Item f) GDPR]. The detailed rules and guarantees of data protection concerning the camera surveillance are described in a separate policy and Data controller controls such activities based on this separate policy.
45. During the use of the Website, beyond the personal data of the Data subject, certain information concerning the computer of the Data subject (cookies) are recorded that are generated during the use of the Website and that are recorded upon the opening and closing of the Website (without a specific action or statement of the Data subject) (logging). The purpose of this is to create statistics concerning the visitor numbers and use of the Website and the development of the IT system of the Website. The Data controller does not combine the cookies with the personal data of the Data subject (unless prescribed by the laws) and only the Data controller may access same. The Data subjects can delete the cookies from their own computers anytime (through the appropriate menu items of the browser) or may set the browser (mostly through the “Help” function) to ban cookies. However, by banning cookies the Data subject acknowledges that the Website may not provide the same user experience.
Data controllers appoint the Szabó, Kocsis and Partner Law Firm (address: 1095 Budapest, Mester utca 83/A. IX. em. 4. a.; e-mail: iroda@szkiroda.hu; phone: 06-1-878-0802) as joint data protection officer (DPO) for ensuring the legality of their data processing practice. This task is performed on the basis of a DPO service contract.
c) providing professional advice, information concerning data subject rights.
Please find below the rights of the Data subject that can be exercised in relation to the Data controllers. Data controllers are jointly and severally responsible for fulfilling the below detailed obligations, i.e. the Data subject may exercise his/her rights in relation to any of the data controllers, except when one specific data controller acts concerning a certain data processing activity.
46. Communication with the Data controller: The Data subject and the Data controllers can communicate via phone, e-mail or postal mail. Data controllers’ e-mail address for this purpose: info@metrodom.hu; mailing address: 1095 Budapest, Mester utca 83/C Cü3. The Data subject is entitled to request information from the Data controllers whether his/her personal data is processed and if yes, then the Data subject has a right to access the processed personal data in the following extent.
g) source of the data collected by the Data controllers and legal ground of the processing.
Data controllers provide the requested information without undue delay but within one month from the receipt of the request at the latest. If necessary, with a view to the complexity and number of the requests, this deadline may be extended with an additional period of two months. Data controllers shall inform the Data subject on the deadline extension and the reasons for the delay within one month from the receipt of the request. Data controllers provide a copy of the personal data being the subject-matter of the data processing to the Data subject at his/her request. Data controllers may charge a reasonable administrative fee for further copies requested by the Data subject.
a) Data controllers deal with and answer the e-mail of the Data subject concerning the data processing only if it was sent from the e-mail address or other contact that the Data subject communicated to the Data controllers earlier (except when the Data subject makes reference to the change of his/her e-mail address or other contact information or if the person of the Data subject can be clearly identified).
b) If the Data controllers fail to take measures based on the request of the Data subject, then the Data subject shall be informed without undue delay but within one month from the receipt of the request at the latest on the reasons for the lack of measures and on the right of the Data subject to file a complaint with the Supervising authority or to file a lawsuit with the competent court.
47. Rectification: The Data subject is entitled to inform the Data controllers on the changes of his/her personal data (in e-mail or postal mail as detailed above). Data controllers register the change within 8 days from the receipt of the notification. If the Data subject fails to report any changes to his/her personal data without delay, then the Data subject shall be liable for the consequences of this omission. If the submitted personal data is false and the correct data is available to the Data controllers, then Data controllers amend the data automatically.
e) the personal data shall be deleted for the fulfilment of a legal obligation set out in the laws of the European Union or of a member state.
d) for the establishment, exercise or defence of legal claims.
49. Objection to the data processing: The Data subject is entitled to object the processing of his/her personal data in line with this Policy, based on a legitimate interest on grounds relating to his or her particular situation. The Data controllers shall no longer process the personal data unless they demonstrate compelling legitimate grounds for the processing which override the interests, rights and freedoms of the data subject or for the establishment, exercise or defence of legal claims.
50. Right to restriction of the data processing: The Data subject shall have the right to obtain from the Data controllers restriction of processing where one of the following applies.
d) the Data subject has objected to processing, pending the verification whether the legitimate grounds of the Data controllers override those of the Data subject.
Where processing has been restricted, such personal data shall, with the exception of storage, only be processed with the Data subject's consent or for the establishment, exercise or defence of legal claims or for the protection of the rights of another natural or legal person or for reasons of important public interest. The Data subject who has obtained restriction of processing, shall be informed by the Data controllers before the restriction of processing is lifted.
51. Right to data portability: Regarding personal data processed on the basis of the consent of the Data subject or for the fulfilment of the Contract the Data subject shall have the right to receive the personal data concerning him/her, which s/he has provided to the Data controller, in a structured, commonly used and machine-readable format and have the right to transmit those data to another controller without hindrance from the Data controllers. This right may be exercised only concerning personal data that are processed on the legal grounds of consent or the fulfilment of a contract and pertain only to digital data.
52. Complaint to the Supervising authority: The Data subject is entitled to file a complaint with the Supervising authority with reference to the breach of laws concerning the processing of his/her personal data or if there is an imminent risk thereto. The investigation of the Supervising authority is free of charge and the expenses of the investigation are advanced and covered by the Supervising authority. No one should be subject to retaliation due to a complaint filed with the Supervising authority. The Supervising authority may disclose the person of the complainant if the investigation could not be carried out without this. If the complainant requests so, the Supervising authority is not entitled to disclose his/her person even if this leads to the frustration of the investigation.
53. Judicial route: the Data subject may turn to the courts against the Data controllers if his/her rights are breached. The lawsuit belongs to the competence of the regional courts. As a main rule the lawsuit shall be heard by the regional court with geographical jurisdiction over the case according to the seat of the data controller but the Data subject can also opt for the regional court with geographical jurisdiction based on his/her home address or temporary residence. The geographical jurisdiction of the courts can be checked on the court website with the search application “Court search” at www.birosag.hu . The regional court handle the matters with urgency.
b) breach the personality rights of the Data subject, then the Data subject can claim non-pecuniary restitution from the Data controllers.
The Data controllers shall be set free from their liability for the compensation of damages and non-pecuniary restitution, if they prove that the damages or the breach of the personality rights of the Data subject was caused by an unavertable cause outside of the scope of the data processing. The damages are not to be compensated and no non-pecuniary restitution can be claimed if the breach resulting from the damages or the breach of personality rights resulted from the wilful or grossly negligent conduct of the Data subject (injured person).
55. In the case of a Data subject under 16 years of age, the submission of his/her personal data require the consent of his/her legal guardians (parents).
56. The Data controllers maintain the right to modify this Policy unilaterally at any time.
57. This Policy is governed by the Hungarian laws.
58. This Policy shall be in effect from 25 May 2018. You can find the Policy at https://metrodom.hu/en/privacy-policy.