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
FRENCH COMPANY WHICH MANUFACTURED ELEVATOR BRAKES FOR SALE TO OTHER MANUFACTURERS DID NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT CONTACTS WITH NEW YORK TO CONFER JURISDICTION IN THIS ELEVATOR MALFUNCTION CASE (SECOND DEPT).
IT WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION TO DENY FATHER’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS DEFAULT IN THIS CUSTODY CASE; THE USUAL RULES FOR VACATION OF A DEFAULT ARE RELAXED IN CHILD CUSTODY MATTERS (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF IN THIS NON-JURY TRIAL DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH RPAPL 1303; JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE AND SALE REVERSED (SECOND DEPT). ​
Operative Principles Re: a Collision Where Plaintiff Has the Right-of-Way Explained
TENANT ABUTTING SIDEWALK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THAT IT DID NOT CLEAR ICE AND SNOW FROM THE SIDEWALK AND THAT IT DID NOT EXACERBATE THE DANGEROUS CONDITION, MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
HARMLESS ERROR TO ADMIT EVIDENCE OF PRIOR CRIMES, HARMLESS ERROR TO PROHIBIT CROSS-EXAMINATION OF ARRESTING OFFICER ABOUT A SETTLED FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS SUIT, STATEMENTS MADE BY DEFENDANT NOT ADMISSIBLE AS PRIOR CONSISTENT STATEMENTS OR AS EVIDENCE OF STATE OF MIND, EVIDENTIARY ARGUMENT NOT RAISED BELOW OR ON APPEAL CANNOT BE CONSIDERED (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE DOCTORS WHO TREATED PLAINTIFF IN THE EMERGENCY ROOM WERE NOT EMPLOYED BY THE HOSPITAL, THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THEY HAD APPARENT OR OSTENSIBLE AGENCY RENDERING THE HOSPITAL VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR ANY MALPRACTICE COMMITTED BY THEM (SECOND DEPT).
EVIDENCE DEFENDANT COMMITTED A BANK ROBBERY ONE MONTH AFTER THE CHARGED MURDER WAS NOT ADMISSIBLE UNDER MOLINEUX TO FILL IN A GAP IN THE EVIDENCE OR EXPLAIN A RELATIONSHIP WITH A WITNESS OR TO SHOW A CONSCIOUSNESS OF GUILT; A WITNESS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO TESTIFY DEFENDANT THREATENED TO KILL ANOTHER WITNESS UNDER THE “OPENING THE DOOR” THEORY BECAUSE THERE WAS NO MISLEADING TESTIMONY WHICH NEEDED TO BE CORRECTED (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...