You are here: / / INTRA- OR INTER- AGENCY EXEMPTION TO DISCLOSURE UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION...
,

INTRA- OR INTER- AGENCY EXEMPTION TO DISCLOSURE UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW (FOIL) DID NOT EXTEND TO COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN MAYOR DE BLASIO’S OFFICE AND A CONSULTANT RETAINED BY A PRIVATE ORGANIZATION (AS OPPOSED TO A CONSULTANT HIRED BY A GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY), PREVAILING PARTIES ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Singh, determined that the intra- or inter-agency exemption from the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) could not be stretched to include communications between Mayor de Blasio’s office and an outside consultant retained by a private organization (Campaign for One New York or CONY), as opposed to a consultant hired by a government agency. Because the reporters seeking the information had substantially prevailed in seeking disclosure, they were entitled to attorney’s fees:

It is well settled that for communications between a governmental agency and an outside consultant to fall under the agency exemption, the outside consultant must be retained by the governmental agency … .

Respondents seek to broaden the agency exemption to shield communications between a governmental agency and an outside consultant retained by a private organization and not the agency. This attempt expands the agency exemption and closes the door on government transparency. Requiring an agency to retain an outside consultant to protect its communications comports with the fundamental principle that FOIL exemptions should be “narrowly interpreted so that the public is granted maximum access” to public records … . Matter of Rauh v de Blasio, 2018 NY Slip Op 03115, First Dept 5-1-18

​FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW (FOIL) (INTRA OR INTER AGENCY EXEMPTION TO DISCLOSURE UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW (FOIL) DID NOT EXTEND TO COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN MAYOR DE BLASIO’S OFFICE AND A CONSULTANT RETAINED BY A PRIVATE ORGANIZATION (AS OPPOSED TO A CONSULTANT HIRED BY A GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY) (FIRST DEPT))/INTER- INTRA- AGENCY EXEMPTION (FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW (FOIL) (INTRA OR INTER AGENCY EXEMPTION TO DISCLOSURE UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW (FOIL) DID NOT EXTEND TO COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN MAYOR DE BLASIO’S OFFICE AND A CONSULTANT RETAINED BY A PRIVATE ORGANIZATION (AS OPPOSED TO A CONSULTANT HIRED BY A GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY) (FIRST DEPT))/ATTORNEY’S (FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW (FOIL), PREVAILING PARTIES ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES (FIRST DEPT)/CONSULTANTS (FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW (FOIL), INTRA OR INTER AGENCY EXEMPTION TO DISCLOSURE UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW (FOIL) DID NOT EXTEND TO COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN MAYOR DE BLASIO’S OFFICE AND A CONSULTANT RETAINED BY A PRIVATE ORGANIZATION (AS OPPOSED TO A CONSULTANT HIRED BY A GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY) (FIRST DEPT))

You might also like
Detention and Frisk of Juvenile Supported by Reasonable Suspicion
THE PETITION ALLEGED THE DECEASED CO-TRUSTEE CONCEALED THE TRUST AND DISTRIBUTIONS TO THE TRUST BENEFICIARIES; PETITIONERS HAD STANDING TO SEEK DISGORGEMENT OF THE COMMISSIONS PAID TO THE DECEASED CO-TRUSTEE UNDER “BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY” AND “FAITHLESS SERVANT” THEORIES (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION, LADDER KICKED OUT FROM UNDER HIM.
Criteria for (Upward) Departure from the Risk Level Assessed by the Board of Sex Offenders Explained
Landlord Properly Granted Summary Judgment in Action Stemming from an Assault on Landlord’s Premises—Plaintiff Unable to Raise a Question of Fact Whether the Assailants Were Intruders, as Opposed to Tenants or Invitees
PLAINTIFF ALLEGED A VALID NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT INSURANCE BROKER FOR FAILURE TO NOTIFY THE EXCESS CARRIER OF A CLAIM AGAINST PLAINTIFF; IT WAS ALLEGED THAT PLAINTIFF ROUTINELY NOTIFIED DEFENDANT BROKER OF ANY CLAIMS AND DEFENDANT BROKER ROUTINELY NOTIFIED THE AFFECTED CARRIERS, GIVING RISE TO A DUTY TO DO SO (FIRST DEPT).
USING A NEW YORK VIRTUAL LAW OFFICE PROGRAM (VLOP) ONLY AS A MAILING ADDRESS AND AS AN AGENT TO ACCEPT SERVICE DOES NOT SATISFY THE REQUIREMENT THAT AN ATTORNEY PRACTICING IN NEW YORK HAVE A PHYSICAL OFFICE IN NEW YORK, HOWEVER THE ACTION BROUGHT BY THE VLOP ATTORNEY IS NOT A NULLITY AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF ALLEGED DEFENDANT CORPORATION’S REGISTRATION STATEMENT CONTAINED FALSE AND MISLEADING CLAIMS WHICH INDUCED PLAINTIFF TO BUY STOCK IN DEFENDANT’S CORPORATION; THE CLAIMS IN DEFENDANT’S REGISTRATION STATEMENT WERE MERE PUFFERY AND WERE NOT ACTIONABLE VIOLATIONS OF THE SECURITES ACT OF 1933 (FIRST 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

RECORD OF DEFENDANT’S ACQUITTAL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN UNSEALED FOR USE... ALTHOUGH THE APPELLATE COURT TOOK JUDICIAL NOTICE OF A REGULATION ALLOWING CITY...