You are here: / / SAFE ACT DOES NOT AFFECT APPLICABILITY OF FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW EXEMPTIONS...
,

SAFE ACT DOES NOT AFFECT APPLICABILITY OF FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW EXEMPTIONS TO HOLDERS OF PISTOL PERMITS.

In a matter of first impression, the Second Department determined the SAFE ACT, which allows holders of pistol permits to apply to have their names and addresses removed from the public record, does not affect the application of the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) exemptions to holders of pistol permits which remain on the public record. Therefore, the newspaper’s (Gannett’s) request for the names and addresses of pistol permit holders (those not “excepted” under the SAFE ACT) was properly granted because none of the FOIL exemptions applied:

The County parties’ argument that, pursuant to Public Officers Law §§ 87(2)(b) and 89(2)(b)(ii), disclosure of the names and addresses of pistol permit holders would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy because Gannett intends to use the names and addresses of pistol permit holders for solicitation purposes is without merit. Gannett’s status as a commercial enterprise does not demonstrate that Gannett intends to use the names and addresses to solicit business … , and it represented that it did not intend to do so.

Moreover, the County parties failed to establish that disclosure of the names and addresses would ” be offensive and objectionable to a reasonable [person] of ordinary sensibilities'” … . The County parties also failed to establish that any other exemptions to the FOIL disclosure requirement are applicable to the records at issue. Matter of Inc. v County of Putnam, 2016 NY Slip Op 05999, 2nd Dept 9-14-16

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW (FOIL) (SAFE ACT DOES NOT AFFECT APPLICABILITY OF FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW EXEMPTIONS TO HOLDERS OF PISTOL PERMITS)/SAFE ACT (SAFE ACT DOES NOT AFFECT APPLICABILITY OF FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW EXEMPTIONS TO HOLDERS OF PISTOL PERMITS)/PISTOL PERMITS (SAFE ACT DOES NOT AFFECT APPLICABILITY OF FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW EXEMPTIONS TO HOLDERS OF PISTOL PERMITS)

You might also like
DEFENDANT MADE A LEFT TURN IN THE PATH OF PLAINTIFF’S VEHICLE IN VIOLATION OF THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LIABILITY AND DISMISSING THE COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
IN A SLIP AND FALL CASE, TO DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION, THE DEFENDANT MUST PROVE THE AREA OF THE SLIP AND FALL WAS CLEANED OR INSPECTED CLOSE IN TIME TO THE INCIDENT; PROOF OF GENERAL CLEANING OR INSPECTION PRACTICES IS NOT ENOUGH; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
AN ACTION CANNOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE PURSUANT TO CPLR 3216 WHEN ISSUE HAS NEVER BEEN JOINED (SECOND DEPT).
IN THIS BUS-PASSENGER INJURY CASE, THE BUS DRIVER RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE EMERGENCY DOCTRINE APPLIED; THE BUS STRUCK A VEHICLE WHICH STOPPED SUDDENLY AFTER IT WAS CUT OFF BY A THIRD VEHICLE; THE BUS DRIVER’S AFFIDAVIT WAS SUPPORTED BY SURVEILLANCE VIDEO (SECOND DEPT).
THE JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED ON THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW PROVISION WHICH REQUIRES SIGNALING FOR 100 FEET BEFORE MAKING A TURN, EVEN THOUGH THE TRUCK WHICH MADE THE TURN WAS STOPPED AT A TRAFFIC LIGHT; DEFENSE VERDICT IN THIS TRUCK-BICYCLE ACCIDENT CASE REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION WAS COMMENCED IN DECEDENT’S NAME AFTER DECEDENT HAD DIED, THE ACTION WAS NOT A NULLITY AND WAS PROPERLY REVIVED WITHIN SIX MONTHS PURSUANT TO CPLR 205 (a); SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT (SECOND DEPT).
ABSENT “EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES,” A JUDGE DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO, SUA SPONTE, DISMISS A COMPLAINT (SECOND DEPT). ​
Town Board Is Not a Proper Party In an Action Seeking Review of a Determination Made by the Town’s Zoning Board

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

FOUNDATION REQUIREMENTS FOR BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE NOT... LANDLORD DID NOT HAVE A DUTY TO DISCLOSE LOCAL LAWS RESTRICTING THE USE OF...