You are here: / / THE CITY MAY NOT CHARGE A FEE FOR REVIEW AND REDACTION OF POLICE BODY-WORN...

THE CITY MAY NOT CHARGE A FEE FOR REVIEW AND REDACTION OF POLICE BODY-WORN CAMERA FOOTAGE PURSUANT TO A FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW (FOIL) REQUEST (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the city was not entitled to charge a fee for the review or redaction of police body-worn camera (BWC) footage under the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL):

… [R]espondents may not charge petitioner a fee for the costs associated with their review or redaction of the BWC footage requested by petitioner … . We note that the Committee on Open Government has specifically opined that “if the document exists in electronic format and the agency has the authority and the ability to redact electronically, we believe it would be reasonable for the agency to provide the requested redacted copy at no charge” (Comm on Open Govt FOIL—AO—18904 [2012]). While “the advisory opinions issued by the Committee on Open Government are not binding on the courts . . . , an agency’s interpretation of the statutes it administers generally should be upheld if not unreasonable or irrational” … . We therefore modify the judgment by vacating that part of the judgment permitting respondents to charge petitioner a fee for the cost of reviewing and redacting the requested video footage. Matter of Forsyth v City of Rochester, 2020 NY Slip Op 04250, Fourth Dept 7-24-20

 

You might also like
Questions of Fact Raised About Labor Law 240(1), 240(6) and 200 Causes of Action—Labor Law 200 Actions Are Not Limited to Construction Work (Question of Fact About Unsafe Work Site Will Support Labor Law 200 Cause of Action)
Plaintiffs Entitled to Attorney’s Fees Pursuant to 42 USC 1988—Criteria Explained
COURT ERRED IN REFUSING TO APPLY THE “MADE WHOLE” RULE IN THIS SUBROGATION ACTION.
PENNSYLVANIA CRIME IS NOT THE EQUIVALENT OF A NEW YORK FELONY; DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SENTENCED AS A SECOND FELONY OFFENDER (FOURTH DEPT).
Tenant In “Adjacent Property” May Be Responsible for Maintenance of a Sidewalk Where the Sidewalk is Subject to Special Use by the Tenant as Part of a Driveway
WHERE THERE IS A DISCREPANCY THE ORDER MUST BE CONFORMED WITH THE DECISION (FOURTH DEPT).
THE COURT OF CLAIMS, NOT SUPREME COURT, IS THE PROPER FORUM FOR THIS DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION AGAINST THE STATE (FOURTH DEPT).
Sentence Vacated—Sentencing Judge Relied on Materially Untrue Assumptions and Misinformation About Defendant’s Criminal History

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

42 USC 1983 CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST THE SHERIFF AND UNDERSHERIFF IN THEIR OFFICIAL... UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, WHETHER THE CONDITIONS PRECEDENT TO ARBITRATION...