You are here: / / Request for Mugshots and Identifying Information Re: Arrestees for Posting...

Request for Mugshots and Identifying Information Re: Arrestees for Posting on Petitioner’s Website Denied—Posting of Such Information Would Constitute an Unwarranted Invasion of Privacy

Petitioner sought mugshots and other identifying information re: arrestees from the NYC Department of Corrections (DOC) for posting on his website.  Petitioner charged a fee for removing a photo from the site.  DOC denied the request. Supreme Court denied the Article 78 petition seeking reversal of the DOC’s denial.  The Second Department determined DOC did not meet its burden of demonstrating the applicability of any of the statutory exemptions from disclosure in the Public Officers Law (DOC’s assertions were “conclusory”), but went on to determine release of the photos and information would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy and may endanger the life or safety of the arrestees:

The agency’s burden of demonstrating that the material requested falls within a statutory exemption “requires the [agency] 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'” … .

Pursuant to Public Officers Law § 87(2)(b), an agency “may deny access to records” where disclosure “would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy under the provisions of [Public Officers Law § 89(2)(b)].” “[W]here none of the [exemptions under Public Officers Law § 89(2)(b) are] applicable, a court must decide whether any invasion of privacy . . . is “unwarranted” by balancing the privacy interests at stake against the public interest in disclosure of the information'” … .

Here, the DOC proffered only conclusory assertions that denial of the requested records “would result in economic or personal hardship to the subject party,” which was insufficient to demonstrate the applicability of Public Officers Law § 89(2)(b)(iv) … . The DOC also failed to establish that any individuals received an express or implied promise of confidentiality from it, as required to demonstrate the applicability of Public Officers Law § 89(2)(b)(v) … .

In view of the DOC’s failure to demonstrate the applicability of any exemptions under Public Officers Law § 89(2)(b), this Court must determine whether disclosure would constitute an “unwarranted invasion of personal privacy” by ” balancing the privacy interests at stake against the public interest in disclosure of the information'” … . Here, the petitioner has not set forth any direct public interest in disclosure of the records at issue, which were sought for the sole purpose of posting personal information and photographs of individuals currently or formerly in the custody of the DOC on a website that collects payment in exchange for removing the photographs. On the other hand, the record reflects that the privacy interests of numerous individuals are implicated, including those individuals who were ultimately acquitted of any criminal charges and adolescents between the ages of 16 and 18 who are presently or were in the custody of the DOC. Consequently, under the particular circumstances of this case, a balancing of the privacy interests at stake against any public interest in disclosure necessitates a determination that disclosure of the records at issue would constitute an “unwarranted invasion of personal privacy” (Public Officers Law § 87[2][b]…). Matter of Prall v New York City Dept. of Corrections, 2015 NY Slip Op 04653, 2nd Dept 6-3-15

 

You might also like
Questions of Fact Re: Whether Municipality Created the Dangerous Condition Thereby Negating the Written-Notice Requirement
THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH’S DETERMINATION THE 91-YEAR-OLD PETITIONER WAS NOT ENTITLED TO CONTINUOUS CARE WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT).
PROPERTY OWNER’S [EMPLOYER’S] COMMON LAW DUTY TO PROVIDE SAFE PLACE TO WORK NOT TRIGGERED BY INJURY WHEN DRAWING UP AN ESTIMATE.
THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER REPLACEMENT OF DAMAGED CEILING TILES WAS REPAIR, COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6), OR ROUTINE MAINTENANCE, WHICH IS NOT COVERED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF, ON THE DAY OF TRIAL, REQUESTED AND WAS GRANTED A DISCONTINUANCE WITHOUT PREJUDICE; PLAINTIFF COULD NOT TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE SIX-MONTH EXTENSION OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS AFFORDED BY CPLR 205(A) (SECOND DEPT).
County Water Authority Had Standing to Bring Action Based Upon the Chemical Contamination of Its Wells—CPLR 214-c Governs Actions Based Upon Contamination—Action Was Untimely
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE POLICE OFFICER ACTED IN RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR THE SAFETY OF OTHERS WHEN HE ATTEMPTED TO MAKE A U-TURN TO PURSUE A VEHICLE AND STRUCK PLAINTIFF’S CAR (SECOND DEPT).
Erroneous Admission of Hearsay and Expert Testimony Re: ANSI Standards Required Reversal of Million Dollar Verdict in Slip and Fall Case

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

As a Contingent Remainder of the Subject Trust, the “Charitable Trust”... Failure to Suppress Statement Was Not Harmless Error Because the Statement Undermined...