You are here: / / With the Exception of Residence Addresses Included in the Requested Documents,...

With the Exception of Residence Addresses Included in the Requested Documents, Respondent Fire Department Did Not Meet Its Burden of Demonstrating the Applicability of a Statutory Exemption to Disclosure

The Second Department determined the respondent fire department did not demonstrate why any information other than the residence addresses should be redacted from the requested documents. Providing the residence addresses would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. Conclusory assertions by the fire department were not otherwise sufficient to meet the department’s burden for demonstrating the applicability of a statutory exemption from disclosure:

Under FOIL, government records are “presumptively open” for public inspection and copying, unless they fall within an enumerated statutory exemption of Public Officers Law § 87(2) … . The exemptions are to be “narrowly construed” so as to ensure maximum public access …, and the burden rests on the agency to demonstrate that the requested material in fact qualifies for exemption (see Public Officers Law § 89[4][b]…). To meet that burden, the agency must “articulate particularized and specific justification” for the nondisclosure at issue … .

Here, the Fire Department failed to articulate a particularized and specific justification for any of the redacted information at issue, except for the residence addresses contained in the subject documents. The Fire Department’s conclusory assertions that the redacted information, other than residence addresses, fell within a statutory exemption were insufficient to meet its burden of demonstrating that the requested information was exempt from disclosure … . Matter of Villalobos v New York City Fire Dept., 2015 NY Slip Op 06249, 2nd Dept 7-22-15

 

You might also like
PROPERTY OWNER’S LIABILITY UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1) FOR PLAINTIFF’S FALL FROM A SCAFFOLD THAT DID NOT HAVE SAFETY RAILINGS IS BASED UPON ITS STATUS AS AN OWNER, NOT NEGLIGENCE, THEREFORE PROPERTY OWNER ENTITLED TO INDEMNIFICATION FROM GENERAL CONTRACTOR (SECOND DEPT).
FACT THAT PLAINTIFF, A PASSENGER IN THE LEAD VEHICLE, WAS NOT AT FAULT IN THE REAR-END COLLISION DOES NOT LEAD TO THE AUTOMATIC CONCLUSION THE DRIVER OF THE REAR VEHICLE WAS AT FAULT; HERE THE DRIVER OF THE REAR VEHICLE RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE ACCIDENT WAS CAUSED BY OIL ON THE ROADWAY; SUMMARY JUDGMENT FINDING THE REAR DRIVER AT FAULT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
QUESTION OF FACT RAISED ABOUT WHETHER A SEPARATION AGREEMENT WAS UNCONSCIONABLE.
MOTION TO AMEND NOTICE OF CLAIM TO CHANGE THE DATE OF THE ACCIDENT, RENDERING THE NOTICE OF CLAIM TIMELY, PROPERLY GRANTED.
ALTHOUGH NO ESPINAL FACTORS WERE ALLEGED BY PLAINTIFF IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT’S ORAL CONTRACT WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER TO REMOVE ICE AND SNOW ENTIRELY REPLACED THE PROPERTY OWNER’S DUTY, AND WHETHER DEFENDANT HAD CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF A RECURRENT ICY CONDITION, PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DELEGATED ITS AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE PARENTAL ACCESS BY CONDITIONING ACCESS ON THE CONSENT OF THE CHILDREN (SECOND DEPT).
Criteria for Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Cause of Action (Where Documentary Evidence Submitted) Explained—Criteria for Motion to Dismiss Based on Documentary Evidence Explained—Pleading Requirements for Legal Malpractice Explained
COUNTY DID NOT PRESENT SUFFICIENT PROOF THAT THE INJURY OF PLAINTIFF INMATE BY OTHER INMATES WAS NOT FORESEEABLE, THAT THE SAFETY PRECAUTIONS WERE ADEQUATE, OR THAT THE MEDICAL CARE WAS ADEQUATE, COUNTY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (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

Children’s Out-of-Court Statements Sufficiently Corroborated to Support... Broker Entitled to a Commission Despite Purchaser’s Wish Not to Work with...