You are here: / / INSUFFICIENT SHOWING BY THE STATE POLICE TO JUSTIFY DENIAL OF REQUEST FOR...

INSUFFICIENT SHOWING BY THE STATE POLICE TO JUSTIFY DENIAL OF REQUEST FOR RECORDS PERTAINING TO A VICTIM OF CRIMES COMMITTED BY PETITIONER, MATTER REMITTED.

The Third Department determined the state police did not make sufficient assertions to justify the denial of petitioner’s request for records concerning a victim of crimes committed by petitioner (an inmate). The state police did not provide factual information to support the claims that the records would disclose non-routine investigatory techniques and would violate privacy. The state police further failed to show that redaction could address those concerns. The matter was remitted to Supreme Court:

The State Police merely paraphrased the statutory language of the exemptions without describing the records withheld or providing any factual basis for its conclusory assertions that disclosure would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy and would reveal nonroutine criminal investigative techniques and procedures … . Further, with respect to the personal privacy exemption, the State Police offered no proof that the requested records fell into any enumerated categories and failed to specify the implicated privacy interests, if any, against which the public interest in disclosing the records were to be balanced … .

Moreover, Public Officers Law § 89 (2) (a) expressly permits an agency to delete “identifying details” from records that it makes available to the public in order to prevent unwarranted invasions of personal privacy … , and the State Police failed to make any showing as to whether the requested documents could be redacted in such a manner as to protect personal privacy … . Nor did it submit the documents to Supreme Court for an in camera review to allow an “informed determination” by the court on that issue … . Matter of McFadden v Fonda, 2017 NY Slip Op 02101, 3rd Dept 3-23-17

 

You might also like
PETITIONER, AN ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE, WAS INJURED WHEN A HEAVY SELF-CLOSING DOOR CLOSED ON HER AS SHE LEFT THE HEARING ROOM; THE INCIDENT WAS AN “ACCIDENT” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE RETIREMENT AND SOCIAL SECURITY LAW ENTITLING PETITIONER TO DISABILTIY BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT).
THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE AND THE HEARING COMMITTEE HAD THE DISCRETION TO ACCEPT A LATE ANSWER FROM PETITIONER-PHYSICIAN WHO WAS FACING REVOCATION OF HER MEDICAL LICENSE; THE REJECTION OF THE ANSWER ON THE GROUND THE ALJ AND HEARING COMMITTEE DID NOT HAVE THE DISCRETION TO ACCEPT IT AS A MATTER OF LAW WAS ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS (THIRD DEPT).
EXPERIENCED SKIER ASSUMED THE RISK OF STRIKING A DEPRESSION IN THE SKI TRAIL.
IN A LAWSUIT BY EMPLOYERS AGAINST THE ADMINISTRATORS AND TRUSTEES OF A WORKERS’ COMPENSATION TRUST FOUND TO BE $188 MILLION IN DEBT, THE EMPLOYERS WERE DEEMED THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES OF THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE ADMINISTRATORS AND THE TRUST, MANY OF THE EMPLOYERS’ NONCONTRACTUAL CLAIMS WERE PROPERLY DISMISSED AS DERIVATIVE (PERTAINING TO THE TRUST) RATHER THAN DIRECT.
PEOPLE SHOULD HAVE PROVIDED NOTICE OF BURGLARY VICTIM’S IDENTIFICATION OF DEFENDANT ON THE POLICE DEPARTMENT’S FACEBOOK PAGE AFTER THE VICTIM HAD BEEN GIVEN THE DEFENDANT’S NAME BY THE POLICE, ERROR HARMLESS HOWEVER (THIRD DEPT).
Safety Regulation Asserted to Be the Basis of the Labor Law 241 (6) Cause of Action Did Not Apply to the Defect Which Caused the Injury
ONE PURPOSE FOR ASSESSING ATTORNEY’S FEES AGAINST THE AGENCY IN A FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW CASE IS TO DISCOURAGE DELAYS IN RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR DOCUMENTS; THEREFORE, EVEN THOUGH THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (DEP) TURNED OVER THE DOCUMENTS BEFORE THE APPEAL, THE DEP STILL SHOULD PAY THE ATTORNEY’S FEES RELATED TO THE APPEAL (THIRD DEPT).
PURSUANT TO ECL 23-2711, THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ISSUE A MINING PERMIT BECAUSE THE TOWN LAW PROHIBITED MINING (THIRD 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

DEFENDANT DID NOT CONSENT TO THE ENTRY AND SEARCH OF HIS HOME, MOTION TO SUPPRESS... DELIBERATIVE PROCESS PRIVILEGE UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW DOES NOT...