You are here: / / Request for Employees’ Names and Addresses Not Allowed Under Balancing T...

Request for Employees’ Names and Addresses Not Allowed Under Balancing Test (Privacy versus Public Interest)

The Third Department applied a balancing test to determine whether petitioner’s Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) request for the names and addresses of employees should be granted.  The petitioner, a union employee, wished to communicate with the employees to ensure that nonunion contractors comply with the prevailing wage law (Labor Law 220).  The court affirmed the denial of petitioner’s request:

“FOIL is based on a presumption of access to [government] records, and an agency . . . carries the burden of demonstrating that [an] exemption applies to [a] FOIL request” … .  The personal privacy exemption (see Public Officers Law § 87 [2] [b]) incorporates a nonexhaustive list of categories of information that falls within the exemption (see Public Officers Law § 89 [2] [b] [i]-[vii]).  Where, as here, none of the categories applies specifically, the issue of whether there is an “unwarranted invasion” of privacy is decided “by balancing the privacy interests at stake against the public interest in disclosure of the information” … . * * *

An unwarranted invasion of personal privacy has been characterized as that which “‘would be offensive and objectionable to a reasonable [person] of ordinary sensibilities'” … .  Petitioner’s union desires names and home addresses so that it can contact employees of the nonunion contractor to find out if they were paid as reported by their employer.  The scenario of nonunion employees of a nongovernment employer being contacted at their homes by someone from a union who knows their names, their home addresses, the amount of money they reportedly earn, and who wants to talk about that income would be, to most reasonable people, offensive and objectionable. A significant privacy interest is implicated… . Matter of Massaro v NYS Thruway Authority, 516113, 3rd Dept 11-7-13

 

You might also like
DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO NOTICE COUNTY COURT INTENDED TO RELY ON FAMILY COURT RECORDS WHEN CONSIDERING DEFENDANT’S APPLICATION FOR RECLASSIFICATION AS A LEVEL-ONE SEX OFFENDER; THE THIRD DEPARTMENT NOTED THAT THE PROPER INQUIRY IS WHETHER RECLASSIFICATION IS WARRANTED BY A CHANGE IN CONDITIONS, NOT WHETHER THERE IS SUPPORT FOR THE INITIAL LEVEL-TWO CLASSIFICATION (THIRD DEPT).
Hearing Officer’s Failure to Ascertain Why a Witness Called by the Inmate Refused to Testify Required Annulment of the Disciplinary Determination
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER WORKER’S COMPENSATION LAW PRECLUDED SUIT IN NEGLIGENCE, DEFENDANT WAS BOTH AN OFFICER OF PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER AND OWNER, IN AN INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY, OF THE PREMISES WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL.
ALTHOUGH FATHER MISSED PLEADING AND DISCLOSURE DEADLINES, THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THE OMISSIONS WERE WILLFUL; THEREFORE PRECLUDING FATHER FROM PRESENTING EVIDENCE IN THE CUSTODY MODIFICATION PROCEEDING WAS TOO SEVERE A SANCTION (THIRD DEPT).
Claimant Entitled to Partial Disability Benefits for a Back Injury Until the Relationship Between the Back Injury and Claimant’s Inability to Work Was Raised for the First Time at the Hearing—Claimant Had Stopped Working After an Unrelated Knee Injury
THE JUDGE IN THIS MENTAL HYGIENE LAW PROCEEDING SHOULD NOT HAVE HELD THE HEARING ON WHETHER APPELLANT WAS AN INCAPACITATED PERSON IN HER ABSENCE WITHOUT FIRST FINDING SHE COULD NOT MEANINGFULLY PARTICIPATE; IN ADDITION, COUNSEL SHOULD HAVE BEEN APPOINTED FOR APPELLANT BECAUSE SHE WAS CONTESTING THE GUARDIANSHIP PETITION (THIRD DEPT).
THE SPEEDY TRIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR A JUVENILE DELINQUENCY PROCEEDING WERE VIOLATED (THIRD DEPT).
AFTER SKIING ALL DAY AND RETURNING THE EQUIPMENT, CLAIMANT SLIPPED AND FELL ON ICE AND SNOW IN A PARKING LOT; THE ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK DOCTRINE DOES NOT APPLY; THE COURT NOTED THAT INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY, HERE AN INCIDENT REPORT, MAY BE CONSIDERED ON A SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IF IT DUPLICATES NON-HEARSAY (THIRD DEPT). ​

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

“At Will” Clause in Employment Contract Precluded Action Based Upon Promissory... Four-Inch Floor-Drop Caused by Insect-Damage Constituted a “Collapse” within...