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
THE FLAWS IN PLAINTIFF’S PROOF OF STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT ENTITLE DEFENDANT TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE CROSS MOTION; SUMMARY JUDGMENT CANNOT BE GRANTED TO A MOVING PARTY BASED UPON FLAWS IN THE OPPOSING PAPERS.
DEFENDANT ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER FAILED TO ELIMINATE ALL TRIABLE ISSUES OF FACT RE WHETHER A GAP BETWEEN THE CURB AND THE SIDEWALK WAS ATTRIBUTABLE TO ITS NEGLIGENCE AND CONTRIBUTED TO PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF BANK’S REPRESENTATIVE RELIED ON UNIDENTIFIED DOCUMENTS WHICH WERE NOT ATTACHED TO HER AFFIDAVIT TO DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; BANK’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
​IN A FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING, A REFEREE’S REPORT BASED UPON UNPRODUCED BUSINESS RECORDS SHOULD NOT BE CONFIRMED BY THE COURT (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE DID NOT SEE THE CONDITION THAT CAUSED HIM TO FALL NEAR A SINK IN DEFENDANTS’ BATHROOM, BUT HIS PANTS WERE WET AFTER THE FALL; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE GROUND THAT PLAINTIFF COULD NOT IDENTIFY THE CAUSE OF HIS FALL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF ALLEGED CONSTRUCTION WORK ON DEFENDANT’S PROPERTY CAUSED WATER TO ENCROACH ON PLAINTIFF’S PROPERTY; THE NEGLIGENCE ACTION WAS TIME-BARRED BECAUSE THE CONSTRUCTION WORK WAS DONE MORE THAN THREE YEARS BEFORE THE ACTION WAS FILED; THE RELATED NUISANCE AND TRESPASS ACTIONS WERE NOT TIME-BARRED BECAUSE THEY MAY CONSTITUTE “CONTINUING WRONGS” (SECOND DEPT). ​
ALTHOUGH THE RPAPL 1304 FORECLOSURE NOTICE, TO BE VALID, MUST ACCURATELY STATE THE DEFAULT AMOUNT AND THE LENGTH OF TIME THE BORROWER HAS BEEN IN DEFAULT, THERE WAS NO SHOWING HERE THE STATED AMOUNT WAS INACCURATE; THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT WAS IN POSSESSION OF THE NOTE AT THE TIME THE ACTION WAS COMMENCED AND THEREFORE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO FORECLOSE; THE EVIDENCE OF A MERGER SUBMITTED IN REPLY COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED ON THE STANDING ISSUE (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.

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...