You are here: / / Request for Redacted Signatures on Sheriff’s Department Overtime...
, ,

Request for Redacted Signatures on Sheriff’s Department Overtime Records Properly Granted—-Attorney’s Fees Properly Awarded

The Second Department determined the sheriff’s department did not sufficiently justify the redaction of signatures on the requested documents (overtime records) and the petitioners were entitled to attorney’s fees:

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 challenging denial of a Freedom of Information Law (hereinafter FOIL) request, the agency denying access has the burden of demonstrating that the information requested falls within a statutory exemption, which exemptions are to be narrowly construed (see Public Officers Law § 89[5][e], [f]…). This showing requires the entity resisting disclosure to “articulate a particularized and specific justification for denying access'” … . “Conclusory assertions that certain records fall within a statutory exemption are not sufficient; evidentiary support is needed” … . Because FOIL is “based on a presumption of access to the records” …, “FOIL compels disclosure, not concealment'” wherever the agency fails to demonstrate that a statutory exemption applies … . * * *

The agency claimed that redaction was proper pursuant to the “unwarranted invasion of personal privacy” statutory exemption (Public Officers Law § 87[2][b]) since disclosing the captains’ signatures “would result in economic or personal hardship to the subject party” and the signatures were “not relevant to the work of the agency” (Public Officers Law § 89[2][b][iv]). However, because the agency failed to proffer more than conclusory assertions supporting these claims, the Supreme Court correctly determined that the agency failed to meet its burden of demonstrating that the information requested fell within this statutory exemption (see Public Officers Law § 89[5][e], [f]…), and thus, properly directed disclosure of the records without these redactions.  Matter of Jaronczyk v Mangano, 2014 NY Slip Op 070164, 2nd Dept 10-22-14

 

You might also like
Deed-Escrow Conditions Never Satisfied—Transfer Never Took Place
Defendant’s Counsel Took a Position Adverse to Defendant’s Motion to Vacate His Guilty Plea—Court Should Have Appointed New Counsel Before Hearing the Motion
THE COVID EXECUTIVE ORDERS TOLLING THE STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS APPLY TO THE TIME FOR ANSWERING A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN LIEU OF COMPLAINT (SECOND DEPT).
Defendant Failed to Demonstrate the Cause of Plaintiff’s Fall (a Ramp Outside a Building) Was Open and Obvious as a Matter of Law—Summary Judgment Should Not Have Been Granted
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THAT PLAINTIFF PLED GUILTY TO A TRAFFIC OFFENSE DOES NOT PROVE SHE WAS NEGLIGENT; PLAINTIFF ALLEGED SHE PLED GUILTY BECAUSE SHE DID NOT HAVE THE MONEY TO DRIVE FROM HER HOME FOR COURT APPEARANCES (SECOND DEPT).
THE EXTENSION OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN CPLR 213-B(1) WHICH ALLOWS A VICTIM OF A CRIME TO SUE THE PERPETRATOR WITHIN SEVEN YEARS OF THE DATE OF CRIME APPLIES ONLY WHERE THE PERPETRATOR HAS BEEN “CONVICTED OF [THE] CRIME;” A PERPETRATOR WHO HAS BEEN ADJUDICATED A YOUTHFUL OFFENDER HAS NOT BEEN “CONVICTED OF A CRIME” WITHIN THE MEANING OF CPLR 213-B(1) (SECOND DEPT).
IN THIS HYBRID ARTICLE 78-DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION, THE PORTIONS OF THE PETITION WHICH SOUGHT A DECLARATION THAT AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING CODE ARE ILLEGAL AND RELATED DAMAGES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, SUA SPONTE, IN THE ABSENCE OF A SPECIFIC DEMAND FOR DISMISSAL (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE MISTAKENLY ORDERED THE SALE OF MULTIPLE LOTS, WHICH WAS IMPOSSIBLE BECAUSE A SINGLE BUILDING SPANNED THE THREE LOTS, THE MOTION COURT PROPERLY DEEMED THE PROPERTY TO HAVE BEEN SOLD AS A SINGLE LOT, COURT HAS THE POWER TO CORRECT A MISTAKE, SUA SPONTE, WHERE THERE IS NO PREJUDICE (SECOND 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

Defendant’s Request for New Assigned Counsel Was Not Supported by Sufficient... Criteria for Causes of Action Under Labor Law 200 and Common Law Negligence...