SeanPaul “Long Island Audit” Reyes delighted fans on Tuesday with an extended livestream where he prolonged his announcement that he was found guilty of trespassing from a 2023 incident in Brooklyn and received a conditional discharge for his crime that will be cleared from his record should he not be arrested for a year.
The incident that spawned the conviction happened in 2023. Reyes says he was in the process of challenging the policy preventing recording within police precincts. Reyes went to a precinct in Brooklyn where he was arrested on a number of trespassing related charges.
Reyes filed suit against the city of New York soon after and was challenging the policy of the City of New York to enforce the policy preventing citizens from recording within police stations. Judge Jessica G.L. Clarke originally tentatively sided with Reyes’s claims.
The case had been held up for years as the City of New York filed an appeal of a preliminary injunction Judge Clarke in the case preventing the City of New York from enforcing that policy forbidding video recording inside police facilities.
The Appeals court ultimately ruled:
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. 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 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.
Following the ruling by the appeals court in August, the lawsuit has seen a number of delays as lawyers have come and gone from the lawsuit and both sides agreed to delays in filing a second amended civil case management plan and scheduling order.
The most recent filing in the case saw both sides agree to let Reyes drop the charges related to the “right to record” law from his complaint following the Appeals’ Court ruling.
With the finding in favor of the City over the right to record policy, the criminal case against Reyes moved forward.
Reyes explained:
so I just want to back up a little bit. The reason why we went three years later for this trial is because I filed a lawsuit against the um New York City uh based on the right to record act that it basically said if you have the right to record law enforcement in public and the only exceptions were if you were committing an OGA or you were under arrest. Those are the two exceptions.
It went all the way. A federal district court agreed with me and granted me an injunction, a preliminary injunction, which means I was likely to win on the merits. the uh Brooklyn uh district or the city attorney uh uh appealed it to a Second Circuit Court of Appeals, which is right below the Supreme Court for this um circuit.
And they said, well, we don’t really know. We’re gonna certify the question to the New York State Court of Appeals. And that’s where we ultimately lost where the New York State Court of Appeals said it didn’t apply into the precincts.
So then therefore all of this came back down and we had to go Jacob’s like we gotta go to trial and I was like all right and they were gonna they probably would have done an ACD which is like a German contemplation dismissal but you guys know I don’t take any deals like that. So we went to trial And it was a very lack uh if you guys could see the trial, it was very like lackluster. We wouldn’t you wouldn’t have really it was basically the judge made it very clear in the beginning of the trial.
This judge was very you know, stern I would say, right from the outset, and he was very no nonsense. He said, listen, this is not a First Amendment case, which I would argue is not Not true, not the case, but he said it’s not a First Amendment case. This is whether he was told to leave or not.
So the judge in his mind was was he told to leave and then he went back in or not?
Reyes would give his perspective of the brief trial and a sidebar conference that he claimed resulted in laughter between the Judge and his attorney, Jacob Uriel, following the prosecution asking for 10 days of jail time.
Context on why Jacob didn’t even fight so hard for the, you know, for against the 10 days because he already had, and I didn’t know this, unbeknownst to me, love using that word. Unbeknownst to me, I did not know this happened, and I was like, what are you doing? And then the judge immediately after Jacob said, I think a conditional discharge is warranted.
And he sat down, he was like, I agree. Immediately, I agree. Conditional discharge Mr. Reyes, bye.
No, no more. Like it was just literally I didn’t even get a fine. Like I didn’t they didn’t even find me.
It was it was I just have to pay court costs. That’s like a hundred bucks. But Other than that, it w there was no fine, no jail, no nothing.
I think that was obviously the appropriate, you know, punishment uh given I don’t think that I should have been found guilty on the letter of the law. Again, I I I I’ve done a lot of work on this case with Jacob and I and I truly believe, not only did I truly believe I have license a privilege, but I believe in the actual case law. that was cited at the trial for what it means.
And they didn’t the state did a horrible job. The district attorney in Brooklyn did a horrible job. And I was so angry that they would want listen, I have a three and four year old son Uh my wife, I I was so angry at the fact that these district attorneys and I will say, just for just just to say, I will say that these I don’t think that this order came from them for the ten days, for the people that was actually prosecuting the case.
I think it came from somebody higher up in the Bishop Brooklyn District Attorney’s Office who said, hey, when sentencing, I want you to ask for 10 days Maybe it came from Lucifer.
Reyes is appealing the verdict.
The New York based YouTuber is due in court on November 19, 2026, in Suffolk County, New York, for another trespassing related charge.
Since his YouTube demonetization in late August, Reyes has been one of the few success stories on the Patreon platform. The rotund YouTuber has 4,100 members on his Patreon page with 1,500 of those recorded as paid memberships.
With a minimum of $5.00 to sign up for his channel, he is bringing in a minimum of $7,500.00 a month from the platform, a far cry from his YouTube earnings, which were previously estimated at over $30,000.00 per month.
Reyes also won the crowd sourcing title for Wednesday, bringing in $100.00 to his YouTube Demonetized Long Island Audit, Help Us Keep Fighting campaign.
No other campaigns that we follow brought in new donations for Wednesday.
This is a developing news story.
