You are here: / / TOWN DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PREPAYMENT BEFORE RETRIEVING PAPER DOCUMENTS ...

TOWN DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PREPAYMENT BEFORE RETRIEVING PAPER DOCUMENTS WAS JUSTIFIED.

The Second Department determined the town did not demonstrate the need for prepayment of the costs associated with locating the requested documents:

The only evidence in the record that justified the imposition of costs was a letter to the petitioner stating that it would take a Town employee a minimum of eight weeks, at $240 per week, to review 2,500-3,000 files to identify the records available for inspection. Although an agency may charge for employee time spent extracting or segregating data from an electronic database (see Public Officers Law § 87[1][c]), FOIL does not permit an agency to charge for employee time spent searching for paper documents … . Here, the Town failed to demonstrate that the prepayment costs were properly based upon employee time related to retrieving electronic files, rather than a manual search of hard copies for which the Town's recoupment costs are limited to 25¢ per photocopy … . Matter of Ripp v Town of Oyster Bay, 2016 NY Slip Op 04226, 2nd Dept 6-1-16

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW (FOIL) (TOWN DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PREPAYMENT BEFORE RETRIEVING PAPER DOCUMENTS WAS JUSTIFIED)

/by
You might also like
Although Plaintiff Limited Liability Company’s Articles of Incorporation Were Not Filed When It Took Title to Real Property—It May Have Validly Taken Title Pursuant to the “De Facto Corporation Doctrine”
Property Was Not Transferred Until Escrow Conditions Were Met—Appellant Did Not Own the Building Where Plaintiff Slipped and Fell Because the Escrow Conditions Were Not Met and the Deed Was Not Released from Escrow Until the Day After the Slip and Fall
EVIDENCE THE AREA WAS INSPECTED ONCE A MONTH DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION OF THE DRIVEWAY IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE; THE JUDGE PRECLUDED CROSS-EXAMINATION OF PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT ABOUT WHETHER THE OTHER DOCTORS WHO CONSULTED ON PLAINTIFF’S TREATMENT DEPARTED FROM ACCEPTED PRACTICE BY FAILING TO DO FURTHER DIAGNOSTIC TESTING; IF SO, FAULT WOULD BE SHARED PURSUANT TO CPLR 1601 (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT AND HIS SON WERE REPRESENTED BY THE SAME ATTORNEY; DEFENDANT ALLEGEDLY PLED GUILTY TO ATTEMPTED ASSAULT BECAUSE HE WAS TOLD HIS SON WOULD DO JAIL TIME IF DEFENDANT DID NOT ENTER THE PLEA; BECAUSE OF THE ATTORNEY’S CONFLICT OF INTEREST, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Criteria for Negligent Care of a Child by a Nonparent Explained—Effect on Proof Requirements of Amnesia Suffered by the Injured Party Noted
FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE RETURNED THE CHILD TO THE PARENTS’ CUSTODY AFTER THE CHILD HAD BEEN TEMPORARILY REMOVED BECAUSE OF APPARENT ABUSE (SECOND DEPT).
Conversion Action Can Not Be Based Upon Funds Which Came Into Party’s Possession Lawfully (Down Payment)

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

Copyright © 2023 New York Appellate Digest, LLC
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH ALL THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS FOR JUDICIAL SURRENDER OF... BATTERY CAUSE OF ACTION STEMMING FROM KICKBALL GAME SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT,...