You are here: / / GLOMAR RESPONSE, NEITHER CONFIRMING NOR DENYING THE EXISTENCE OF DOCUMENTS,...

GLOMAR RESPONSE, NEITHER CONFIRMING NOR DENYING THE EXISTENCE OF DOCUMENTS, APPROPRIATE UNDER THE FACTS.

The First Department determined, under the facts, the police department's Glomar response to the request for documents was appropriate. A Glomar response refuses to admit or deny the existence of documents:

FOIL does not prohibit respondents from giving a Glomar response to a FOIL request — that is, a response “refus[ing] to confirm or deny the existence of records” where, as here, respondents have shown that such confirmation or denial would cause harm cognizable under a FOIL exception … . Although petitioners contend that such a response is impermissible in the absence of express statutory authorization, the Glomar doctrine is “consistent with the legislative intent and with the general purpose and manifest policy underlying FOIL” … . * * *

Respondents met their burden to “articulate particularized and specific justification” for declining to confirm or deny the existence of the requested records, which sought information related to NYPD investigations and surveillance activities … . In particular, respondents showed that answering petitioners' inquiries would cause harm cognizable under the law enforcement and public safety exemptions of Public Officers Law § 87(2) (see § 87(2)[e], [f] … . Matter of Abdur-Rashid v New York City Police Dept., 2016 NY Slip Op 04318, 1st Dept 6-2-16

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW (FOIL) (GLOMAR RESPONSE, NEITHER CONFIRMING NOR DENYING THE EXISTENCE OF DOCUMENTS, APPROPRIATE UNDER THE FACTS)/GLOMAR RESPONSE (FOIL, GLOMAR RESPONSE, NEITHER CONFIRMING NOR DENYING THE EXISTENCE OF DOCUMENTS, APPROPRIATE UNDER THE FACTS)

You might also like
JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT AND VACATED THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT, ALTHOUGH A SUA SPONTE ORDER IS NOT APPEALABLE AS OF RIGHT, THE NOTICE OF APPEAL WAS DEEMED A MOTION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL (FIRST DEPT). ​
THE EXISTENCE OF A HANDRAIL ON THE LEFT OF THE STAIRS DID NOT WARRANT GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO DEFENDANTS IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE WHERE THERE WAS NO HANDRAIL ON THE RIGHT (FIRST DEPT).
THE NYC LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION’S DESIGNATION OF TWO BUILDINGS AS PART OF A PROTECTED LANDMARK HAD A RATIONAL BASIS AND WAS NOT AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL TAKING, PETITIONER SOUGHT TO DEMOLISH THE TWO BUILDINGS AND CONSTRUCT CONDOMINIUMS (FIRST DEPT).
Spoliation, Discovery Abuse Sanctions, Equitable Estoppel.
THE A-FRAME LADDER PLAINTIFF WAS USING WHEN HE FELL WAS DEFECTIVE AND LABOR LAW 240(1) APPLIED ON THAT GROUND ALONE; EVEN IF THE LADDER HAD NOT BEEN DEFECTIVE, LABOR LAW 240(1) WOULD STILL APPLY BECAUSE THE LADDER WOBBLED AFTER PLAINTIFF RECEIVED AN ELECTRIC SHOCK; THERE IS NO EXCEPTION TO THE APPLICABILITY OF LABOR LAW 240(1) WHERE A LADDER-FALL IS PRECEDED BY AN ELECTRIC SHOCK (FIRST DEPT).
Interplay Between New York Labor Law and Federal Longshore Workers’ Compensation Act Discussed
THE COMPLAINT WAS NEVER PROPERLY AMENDED TO ADD DEFENDANT AS A PARTY PURSUANT TO CPLR 1003 OR CPLR 3025 REQUIRING DISMISSAL (FIRST DEPT). ​
Arbitrator’s Ruling that, Under the Terms of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, a Bus Driver Could Not Be Disciplined for Sexual Harassment While He Was On Union-Paid “Release Time,” Violated the Public Policy Prohibiting Sexual Harassment in the Workplace

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

DISMISSAL WITHOUT A HEARING ON PETITION TO MODIFY CUSTODY ARRANGEMENT WAS ... HOMEOWNER’S EXEMPTION FROM LABOR LAW LIABILITY APPLIED, DESPITE PRESENCE...