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
Question of Fact Whether Employer Considered Accommodation for Plaintiff’s Injury—Summary Judgment to Employer Should Not Have Been Granted
Re: the Unsealing of the Grand Jury Proceedings Concerning Eric Garner’s Death at the Hands of the Police, a “Compelling and Particularized Need” for Disclosure Had Not Been Demonstrated—the Public Interest in Preserving Grand Jury Secrecy Outweighed the Public Interest in Disclosure
THE “CONSENT TO SEARCH” PROBATION CONDITION WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE NATURE OF DEFENDANT’S OFFENSE (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT WAS PROPERLY SERVED OR EVEN NOTIFIED OF THE FORECLOSURE ACTION; THE COURT NEVER HAD JURISDICTION OVER DEFENDANT AND THE MOTION TO EXTEND THE TIME TO SERVE HER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​
WAIVER OF A-1 FELONY INDICTMENT INVALID, DESPITE GUILTY PLEA, WAIVER OF APPEAL AND FAILURE TO PRESERVE THE ERROR.
THE RECORD DID NOT SUPPORT PLACEMENT OF THE AUTISTIC CHILD IN A “QUALIFIED RESIDENTIAL TREATMENT PROGRAM” (QRTP) AS OPPOSED TO FOSTER CARE; CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).
A DEFENDANT WHO PLEADS GUILTY FORFEITS THE RIGHT TO APPEAL THE DENIAL OF A SPEEDY TRIAL MOTION; HERE, BECAUSE THE COURT ERRONEOUSLY TOLD DEFENDANT HE WOULD BE ABLE TO APPEAL, THE DEFENDANT MUST BE GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA (SECOND DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE RENDERED THIS DENTAL MALPRACTICE ACTION TIMELY; PLAINTIFF STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT BASED ON THE PROMISED OUTCOME OF THE DENTAL WORK (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

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...