You are here: / / ARCHITECTURAL PLANS BRIEFLY LEFT WITH THE TOWN PLANNER AND DISPLAYED AND...

ARCHITECTURAL PLANS BRIEFLY LEFT WITH THE TOWN PLANNER AND DISPLAYED AND DISCUSSED AT A MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD WERE RECORDS WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE PUBLIC OFFICERS LAW, PETITION SEEKING THE DOCUMENTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AND SANCTIONS FOR BRINGING THE PETITION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN IMPOSED.

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Dickerson, reversing Supreme Court, determined shopping center development plans which were left for a few days with the town planner, and which were displayed and briefly discussed at a planning board meeting, were “records” within the meaning of the Public Officers Law (Freedom of Information Law). Therefore petitioner’s request for the documents was not frivolous and sanctions, her petition should not have been denied, and attorneys fees should not have been assessed against her:

The Court of Appeals has “required that FOIL be liberally construed and its exemptions narrowly interpreted so that the public is granted maximum access to the records of government'” … . “The legislative purpose is mainly accomplished through the definitions of Agency’ and Record.’ . . . Record’ is broadly defined to include any information kept, held, filed, produced or reproduced by, with or for an agency . . . in any physical form whatsoever'” … . “[T]his very broad definition is not limited by the purpose for which a document was originated or the function to which it relates” … .

Here, it is undisputed that Camarda, the developer’s owner, left the subject architectural renderings in the possession of Williams, the Town Planner, for a number of days, and that Williams displayed the renderings at the meeting of the Planning Board … . Thus, the renderings were “kept” and “held” by an agency, and were “records” within the meaning of FOIL … Since the definition of “record” is not limited by the purpose for which a document was originated or the function to which it relates, the fact that Camarda did not formally submit the renderings as part of an application for approval of an amended site plan is irrelevant. Matter of Fanizzi v Planning Bd. of Patterson, 2016 NY Slip Op 08361, 2nd Dept 12-14-16

 

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW (ARCHITECTURAL PLANS BRIEFLY LEFT WITH THE TOWN PLANNER AND DISPLAYED AND DISCUSSED AT A MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD WERE RECORDS WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE PUBLIC OFFICERS LAW, PETITION SEEKING THE DOCUMENTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AND SANCTIONS FOR BRINGING THE PETITION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN IMPOSED)/MUNICIPAL LAW (ARCHITECTURAL PLANS BRIEFLY LEFT WITH THE TOWN PLANNER AND DISPLAYED AND DISCUSSED AT A MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD WERE RECORDS WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE PUBLIC OFFICERS LAW, PETITION SEEKING THE DOCUMENTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AND SANCTIONS FOR BRINGING THE PETITION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN IMPOSED)/TOWN PLANNING BOARD (ARCHITECTURAL PLANS BRIEFLY LEFT WITH THE TOWN PLANNER AND DISPLAYED AND DISCUSSED AT A MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD WERE RECORDS WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE PUBLIC OFFICERS LAW, PETITION SEEKING THE DOCUMENTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AND SANCTIONS FOR BRINGING THE PETITION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN IMPOSED)

You might also like
DEFENDANT VIOLATED THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW WHEN SHE MADE A LEFT TURN INTO PLAINTIFF’S PATH, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, STATEMENT IN A MEDICAL RECORD ABOUT PLAINTIFF’S SPEED WAS UNRELATED TO DIAGNOSIS OR TREATMENT AND WAS NOT SOURCED, THE STATEMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED AS AN ADMISSION (SECOND DEPT).
INJURY FROM STEPPING INTO AN OPENING THAT IS NOT BIG ENOUGH FOR A PERSON TO FALL THROUGH IS NOT COVERED BY LABOR 240 (1) OR 241 (6) (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS NOT WEARING A HARD HAT AND WAS STRUCK IN THE HEAD BY DEBRIS DURING DEMOLITION WORK; PLAINTIFF ALLEGED THE FAILURE TO PROVIDE HEAD PROTECTION VIOLATED THE INDUSTRIAL CODE GIVING RISE TO A LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION; DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE JOB WAS NOT A HARD HAT JOB; THEREFORE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Exclusion of Alleged Gang Members from Courtroom During Testimony of Fearful Witness Was Proper
Lawsuit Prohibited by Unambiguous Release
Amendment of Summons and Complaint after the Statute of Limitations Has Run
TRIAL COURT PROPERLY GAVE THE GALBO JURY INSTRUCTION RE DEFENDANT’S POSSESSION OF STOLEN PROPERTY IN THIS BURGLARY CASE (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

MOTHER CAN NOT RECOVER FOR EMOTIONAL DISTRESS CAUSED BY IN UTERO INJURY WHEN... NO EVIDENCE DEFENDANT EXPRESSLY WAIVED HIS RIGHT TO BE PRESENT AT RESENTENCING,...