You are here: / / AN ARTICLE 78 REVIEW OF THE RESPONSE TO A FOIL REQUEST MAY ONLY CONSIDER...
, ,

AN ARTICLE 78 REVIEW OF THE RESPONSE TO A FOIL REQUEST MAY ONLY CONSIDER THE GROUND FOR THE INITIAL AGENCY DECISION; THE GROUNDS FOR A SUBSEQUENT DECISION ISSUED AFTER THE ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING WAS COMMENCED SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED; PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR THE METADATA OF THE DISCLOSED DOCUMENTS MUST BE DENIED BECAUSE METADATA WAS NOT ‘REASONABLY DESCRIBED’ IN THE FOIL REQUEST (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the Article 78 review must be confined to the ground asserted in the agency’s initial FOIL decision and could not consider the grounds asserted in the agency’s subsequent decision issued after petitioner brought the Article 78 proceeding. The ground for the initial decision had been abandoned in the second decision. The court noted that the petitioner’s demand for the metadata of the disclosed documents must be denied because metadata was not “reasonably described” in the FOIL request:

This proceeding is not in the nature of mandamus to compel. Instead, the standard of review is whether the denial of the FOIL request was “affected by an error of law” (CPLR 7803[3] … ), for which judicial review is “limited to the grounds invoked by the agency” in its determination … . Since respondents abandoned the exemption raised in their initial decision, they cannot meet their burden to “establish[] that the . . . documents qualif[y] for the exemption” … . Further, as respondents “did not make any contemporaneous claim that the requested materials” fit the newly raised exemptions, “to allow [them] to do so now would be contrary to [Court of Appeals] precedent, as well as to the spirit and purpose of FOIL” … . …

An agency is only required to produce “a record reasonably described” (Public Officers Law § 89[3][a]). Contrary to petitioner’s contention, the FOIL request for “complete copies” of communications and documents cannot fairly be read to have implicitly requested metadata associated with those copies. Matter of Barry v O’Neill, 2020 NY Slip Op 04007, First Dept 7-16-20

 

You might also like
DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO AMEND THEIR ANSWERS IN THIS MED MAL CASE TO ALLEGE PLAINTIFF’S CULPABLE CONDUCT AND COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE (RE: HER WEIGHT AND SMOKING) SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE DELAY IN MAKING THE MOTION CAUSED NO PREJUDICE; GOOD CAUSE FOR THE DELAY NEED NOT BE SHOWN; FAILURE TO INCLUDE THE AMENDED PLEADINGS WITH THE MOTION PAPERS AND DEFECTS IN VERIFICATIONS SHOULD HAVE BEEN OVERLOOKED (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF, WHICH ULTIMATELY WON THE PATENT INFRINGEMENT SUIT, ALLEGED MALPRACTICE IN THE BRINGING OF CERTAIN MOTIONS; HAD THE MOTIONS WON, IT WAS ALLEGED, $10 MILLION IN LEGAL FEES WOULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED; THE MALPRACTICE ACTION WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED.
THE INFANCY TOLL OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN CPLR 208 APPLIES TO A WRONGFUL DEATH ACTION WHERE THE SOLE DISTUBUTEES ARE INFANTS; THE TOLL, HOWEVER, DOES NOT APPLY TO A RELATED ASSAULT AND BATTERY ACTION WHICH IS PERSONAL TO THE DECEDENT (FRIST DEPT).
WHEN THE CONTRACTOR’S EMPLOYEE ARRIVED TO CLEAN THE TANK, THE OPENING WAS COVERED ONLY BY CARDBOARD; AFTER FINISHING THE WORK, THE EMPLOYEE REPLACED THE CARDBOARD COVER; PLAINTIFF SUBSEQUENTLY STEPPED ON THE CARDBOARD AND FELL INTO THE TANK; THE CONTRACTOR’S EMPLOYEE DID NOT LAUNCH AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM WITHIN THE MEANING OF ESPINAL, 98 NY2D 140 (FIRST DEPT).
PETITIONERS. RELATIVES OF PERSONS IN THE NYS DNA DATABASE, HAD STANDING TO CHALLENGE THE RESPONDENTS’ REGULATIONS ALLOWING THE RELEASE OF “FAMILIAL DNA MATCH” INFORMATION LINKING DNA FROM A CRIME SCENE TO A FAMILY, NOT AN INDIVIDUAL; THE REGULATIONS WERE BASED ON SOCIAL POLICY AND THEREFORE EXCEEDED THE REGULATORY POWERS OF THE RESPONDENT AGENCIES; TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT ARGUED THE PETITIONERS DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO CHALLENGE THE REGULATIONS (FIRST DEPT).
Judicial Estoppel Applies Only to Party Who Prevailed in Prior Proceeding
THE ABSENCE FROM THE JURY CHARGE OF AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF ATTEMPTED ROBBERY FIRST DEGREE (ACTUAL POSSESSION OF A DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT) REQUIRED REVERSAL IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE.
The Three-Year Statute of Limitations in the Education Law Need Not Be Raised as a Defense—Here the Charges Against a Teacher Were Time-Barred—The Department of Education (DOE) Did Not Demonstrate the Charges Were Criminal (to Which the Three-Year Statute Would Not Have Applied)

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’S SENTENCE REDUCED TO TIME-SERVED BASED UPON HIS HEALTH (FIRST... THE EX PARTE ORDER ALLOWING THE PROSECUTOR TO SEIZE AND READ DEFENDANT’S...