You are here: / / DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE PETITION SEEKING REVIEW OF FREEDOM OF INFORMATION...

DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE PETITION SEEKING REVIEW OF FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW (FOIL) REQUESTS WAS MOOT, PETITIONER HAD SUBSTANTIALLY PREVAILED AND WAS ENTITLED TO COSTS AND FEES, MATTER REMITTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, modifying Supreme Court, determined petitioner was entitled to costs and fees associated with his FOIL request for information about the confidential informant in the case which led to petitioner’s conviction and incarceration. The state police did not timely respond to petitioner’s requests and eventually provided two police reports and a finding that the remainder of the requested information was exempt from disclosure. The “costs and fees” issue was still viable despite the fact that the proceeding was moot. The Third Department found that the petitioner had substantially prevailed and the state police had not met the time requirements associated with responding to petitioner’s requests:

A court is authorized to award a petitioner “reasonable [counsel] fees and other litigation costs reasonably incurred” where he or she has “substantially prevailed” in the FOIL proceeding and, as relevant here, “the agency failed to respond to a request or appeal within the statutory time” … . “A petitioner ‘substantially prevail[s]’ under Public Officers Law § 89 (4) (c) when [he or she] ‘receive[s] all the information that [he or she] requested and to which [he or she] is entitled in response to the underlying FOIL litigation'”… , regardless of whether “full compliance with the statute was finally achieved” in the form of disclosure, a certification that responsive documents were exempt from disclosure or some combination thereof … . Significantly, the voluntariness of an agency’s disclosure after the commencement of a CPLR article 78 proceeding will not preclude a finding that a litigant has substantially prevailed … . Matter of Cobado v Benziger, 2018 NY Slip Op 04996, Third Dept 7-5-18

​FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW (FOIL) (DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE PETITION SEEKING REVIEW OF A FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW (FOIL) WAS MOOT, PETITIONER HAD SUBSTANTIALLY PREVAILED AND WAS ENTITLED TO COSTS AND FEES, MATTER REMITTED (THIRD DEPT))/PUBLIC OFFICERS LAW (FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW (FOIL), DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE PETITION SEEKING REVIEW OF A FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW (FOIL) WAS MOOT, PETITIONER HAD SUBSTANTIALLY PREVAILED AND WAS ENTITLED TO COSTS AND FEES, MATTER REMITTED (THIRD DEPT))/FEES AND COSTS  (FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW (FOIL), DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE PETITION SEEKING REVIEW OF A FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW (FOIL) WAS MOOT, PETITIONER HAD SUBSTANTIALLY PREVAILED AND WAS ENTITLED TO COSTS AND FEES, MATTER REMITTED (THIRD DEPT))

You might also like
UNDER THE FACTS, NO ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN FAILING TO AWARD PREJUDGMENT INTEREST ON A DISTRIBUTIVE AWARD THE WIFE FAILED TO PAY.
STATE POLICE STOPPED DECEDENT FOR FOLLOWING TOO CLOSELY, DID NOT NOTICE SIGNS OF INTOXICATION, AND LEFT WITHOUT ISSUING A TICKET, DECEDENT LATER FOUND DEAD IN HIS CAR, NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN OFFICERS AND DECEDENT, STATE IMMUNE FROM SUIT (THIRD DEPT).
Judge’s Flawed Question During Plea Colloquy Required Vacation of the Plea
“Attempted Felony Assault” Charge Jurisdictionally Defective
Fact that Defendant Was Seen With a .25 Caliber Handgun Two and a Half Months Before Charged Shooting Allowed In Evidence to Prove “Identity”
SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE SUPPORTED THE DETERMINATION THE UNWITNESSED ACCIDENT OCCURRED WHILE DECEDENT WAS PERFORMING WORK-RELATED DUTIES (THIRD DEPT).
ARBITRATOR’S INTERIM DECISION RE PETITIONER’S SUSPENSION WITHOUT PAY WAS IMPROPER, AND THE ARBITRATOR’S DISMISSAL OF THE CHARGES VIOLATED PUBLIC POLICY, THIRD DEPT PROVIDED A COMPREHENSIVE DISCUSSION OF A COURT’S POWER TO REVIEW AN ARBITRATOR’S DECISION (THIRD DEPT).
IN THIS DOG-BITE CASE, DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED SHE WAS NOT AWARE OF HER DOG’S VICIOUS PROPENSITIES; PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS IN RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT ON THAT ISSUE; DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

DEFENSE COUNSEL INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO MOVE TO DISMISS THE ACCUSATORY INSTRUMENTS... EMERGENCY EXCEPTION TO THE WARRANT REQUIREMENT DID NOT JUSTIFY ENTRY AND SEARCH...