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
INSURANCE COMPANY NOT VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR AN ALLEGED CIVIL ASSAULT AND BATTERY BY A PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR, THE INVESTIGATOR WAS DEEMED A SUBCONTRACTOR, NOT AN EMPLOYEE (SECOND DEPT).
THE COURT MAY ORDER A PARENT TO SUBMIT TO COUNSELING OR TREATMENT AS PART OF A CUSTODY OR PARENTAL ACCESS ORDER; BUT THE COURT MAY NOT IMPOSE SUCH CONDITIONS ON SEEKING PARENTAL ACCESS IN THE FUTURE (SECOND DEPT). ​
DESPITE THE EXPRESS EXCLUSION OF LIABILITY TO THIRD PARTIES IN THE CONTRACT BETWEEN DEFENDANT SECURITY COMPANY AND DEFENDANT THEATER, THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED A COMMON-LAW DUTY OWED BY THE SECURITY COMPANY TO PLAINTIFF, THE SECURITY COMPANY ALLEGEDLY DIRECTED PLAINTIFF TO RESTRAIN A NONPARTY WHO THEN ASSAULTED AND INJURED PLAINTIFF.
Notice to Admit Improperly Sought Admission at Heart of Case
THE JUDGE GRANTED FATHER’S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS (ATTORNEY’S FEES) WITHOUT AFFORDING MOTHER AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD; THE JUDGE RULED ON FATHER’S MOTION AFTER DECIDING TO GRANT MOTHER’S MOTION FOR RECUSAL; REVERSED (SECOND DEPT). ​
Papers Sufficient to Require Suppression Hearing—No Need to Allege Expectation of Privacy Where Police Act Illegally
FAMILY COURT’S DETERMINATION FATHER DID NOT SEXUALLY ABUSE HIS CHILD WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD; THE CHILD’S HEARSAY STATEMENTS WERE CORROBORATED, AND FAMILY COURT’S DECISION TO CREDIT THE TESTIMONY OF FATHER’S EXPERT OVER PETITIONER’S EXPERT WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD (SECOND DEPT).
MOTION TO AMEND NOTICE OF CLAIM TO CORRECT THE ADDRESS OF THE ACCIDENT TWO YEARS AFTER THE CLAIM ACCRUED PROPERLY DENIED, PLAINTIFF DID NOT SHOW DEFENDANT WAS NOT PREJUDICED BY THE WRONG ADDRESS (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 © 2026 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...