You are here: / / REQUEST FOR NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF RESIDENTS PARTICIPATING IN THE DEER...

REQUEST FOR NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF RESIDENTS PARTICIPATING IN THE DEER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM, ALLOWING BOW AND ARROW HUNTING ON THEIR PROPERTY, SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The Third Department determined the request for the names and addresses of residents participating in the deer management program should have been granted by the village. The residents at issue allowed deer hunting (bow and arrow) on their property:

To justify the redaction of the names, addresses and other identifying information relating to participants in the deer management program, respondent asserts that disclosure of this information “would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy” (Public Officers Law § 87 [2] [b]) or “could endanger the li[ves] or safety” of the participants (Public Officers Law § 87 [2] [f]). Turning first to the personal privacy exemption, respondent failed to demonstrate that the redacted information fell into any of the categories of information that the Legislature has specifically determined would qualify as an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy if disclosed (see Public Officers Law § 89 [2] [b]). In the absence of proof establishing the applicability of one of these specifically-enumerated categories, we evaluate whether disclosure would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy “by balancing the privacy interests at stake against the public interest in disclosure of the information” … . Respondent, however, has not articulated the implicated privacy interests, if any, that are to be weighed against the community’s interest in knowing the locations in which deer-hunting activities may take place. …

Nor did respondent demonstrate that disclosure of the redacted information “could endanger the li[ves] or safety” of the program’s participants (Public Officers Law § 87 [2] [f]). While respondent was only required to demonstrate “‘a possibility of endangerment'” … , respondent’s submissions, which included the [affidavit of] … the Mayor of the Village of Cayuga Heights, which adjoined the Village of Lansing, fell short of such demonstration. [The village clerk] merely stated that deer management programs “can be contentious” and that board members of the Village of Cayuga Heights had received threats when they “considered” those programs. The Mayor of the Village of Cayuga Heights confirmed that “[p]roponents of [the] culling operation, including [her] and other Village officials, ha[d] received death threats and other threats of personal harm.” However, neither affidavit established that similar threats had been made in the Village of Lansing or that participation in the deer management program was controversial in that community. Matter of Laveck v Village Bd. of Trustees of the Vil. of Lansing, 2016 NY Slip Op 08150, 3rd Dept 12-1-16

 

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW (REQUEST FOR NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF RESIDENTS PARTICIPATING IN THE DEER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM, ALLOWING BOW AND ARROW HUNTING ON THEIR PROPERTY, SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/DEER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW, REQUEST FOR NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF RESIDENTS PARTICIPATING IN THE DEER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM, ALLOWING BOW AND ARROW HUNTING ON THEIR PROPERTY, SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)

You might also like
UNDER THE PUBLIC AUTHORITIES LAW, LAID OFF SEASONAL EMPLOYEES WHO HAD BEEN TRANSFERRED FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION TO A PUBLIC BENEFIT CORPORATION WERE NOT ENTITLED TO REMAIN IN THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING UNIT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION WHEN REHIRED BY THE PUBLIC BENEFIT CORPORATION (THIRD DEPT).
EMPLOYER DID NOT SUBMIT SUFFICIENT PROOF THAT CLAIMANT RECEIVED UNREPORTED INCOME FROM THE SALE OF DRUGS, THEREFORE CLAIMANT WAS NOT DISQUALIFIED FROM RECEIVING WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BENEFITS 3RD DEPT.
Husband’s Dissipation of His Separate Property Was a Factor in Increasing Wife’s Maintenance and Equitable Distribution
THE INSURANCE POLICY EXCLUDED COVERAGE FOR BODILY INJURY INTENDED OR EXPECTED BY THE INSURED; HERE THE INSURED UNINTENTIONALLY STRUCK COLE, WHO WAS ATTEMPTING TO BREAK UP A FIGHT BETWEEN THE INSURED AND A THIRD PERSON; BECAUSE THE INJURY TO COLE WAS UNINTENDED, THE INSURER WAS REQUIRED TO DEFEND THE INSURED IN COLE’S PERSONAL INJURY ACTION AGAINST THE INSURED (THIRD DEPT). ​
DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ASSESSED 20 POINTS FOR A CONTINUING COURSE OF SEXUAL MISCONDUCT, PROOF OF A SECOND INSTANCE OF SEXUAL MISCONDUCT WAS INSUFFICIENT, AN ALLEGATION IN AN INDICTMENT IS NOT, BY ITSELF, EVIDENCE THE INCIDENT OCCURRED (THIRD DEPT).
Reversible Error to Allow Cross-Examination of Defendant About an Unrelated Prior Crime
APPEAL OF SORA RISK ASSESSMENT NOT PROPERLY BEFORE THE APPELLATE DIVISION, COUNTY COURT NEVER ISSUED THE REQUIRED ORDER (THIRD DEPT).
Gang Affiliation and Prior Drug Offenses Admissible Under Molineux in Murder Case/Motion to Suppress Statement Made When Questioning Continued After Defendant Stated He Did Not Want to Answer Any More Questions Should 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

THE FINDING THAT PETITIONER’S CHILD WAS IN IMMINENT DANGER OF ABUSE, BASED... PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION,...