You are here: / / Intra-Agency Exemption Applied to FOIL Request About AIG Prosecution

Intra-Agency Exemption Applied to FOIL Request About AIG Prosecution

The Third Department determined the “intra-agency” exemption applied to documents requested from the Attorney General’s office concerning the prosecution of American International Group (AIG):

The intra-agency exemption applies to “opinions, ideas, or advice exchanged as part of the consultative or deliberative process of government decision making” (…see Public Officers Law § 87 [2] [g]…). The purpose of such exemption is “to protect the deliberative process of the government by ensuring that persons in an advisory role [will] be able to express their opinions freely to agency decision makers” … . Matter of Smith v New York State Off of the Attorney Gen, 2014 NY Slip Op 02488, 3rd Dept 4-10-14

 

You might also like
Statute of Limitations for Breach of Fiduciary Duty Tolled Until Fiduciary’s Roles Terminated
ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD PROPERLY ALLOWED TO ADOPT THE NEGLECT PETITION AFTER THE PETITIONER REQUESTED THE WITHDRAWAL OF THE PETITION (THIRD DEPT).
TRANSFER OF ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT TO A LOWER PAYING JOB WAS NOT DISCIPLINE UNDER THE EDUCATION LAW AND DID NOT CONSTITUTE A DUE PROCESS VIOLATION (THIRD DEPT).
DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS GUILTY PLEA; DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED DEFENSE COUNSEL PROVIDED ERRONEOUS INFORMATION ABOUT THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF THE PLEA; AND DEFENDANT RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER HE WOULD HAVE DECIDED AGAINST PLEADING GUILTY HAD HE BEEN GIVEN ACCURATE INFORMATION ABOUT THE RISK OF DEPORTATION (THIRD DEPT).
Defendant-Doctor in a Medical Malpractice Action May Be Questioned (by the Plaintiff) As an Expert About His Own Treatment of Plaintiff
IN THIS WILL CONSTRUCTION PROCEEDING, ALTHOUGH THE WILL DID NOT ANTICIPATE DECEDENT’S HUSBAND WOULD DIE BEFORE HER, THE DECEDENT’S INTENT WAS CLEAR AND WAS PROPERLY ENFORCED BY SURROGATE’S COURT.
Res Ipsa Loquitur Proof Requirements Not Met Re: Cause of Fire
ALTHOUGH THE PEDESTRIAN-CAR ACCIDENT OCCURRED ON A ROAD OWNED BY DEFENDANT’S AND PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER AS DEFENDANT WAS LEAVING WORK, THE DEFENDANT WAS NOT ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT WHEN THE ACCIDENT OCCURRED, PLAINTIFF IS NOT RESTRICTED TO A WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW REMEDY (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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Commissioner’s Finding Site Constituted a Significant Threat to Public... Judge Immune from Suit