You are here: / / SUPREME COURT WENT BEYOND THE PERMISSIBLE REVIEW OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL...
, ,

SUPREME COURT WENT BEYOND THE PERMISSIBLE REVIEW OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION’S DETERMINATION UNION CARBIDE’S FOIL REQUESTS WERE MOOT BECAUSE THE REQUESTED DOCUMENTS HAD BEEN PROVIDED; ONCE SUPREME COURT FOUND THAT THE FOIL REQUEST WAS NOT MOOT BECAUSE THERE WERE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS, IT SHOULD NOT HAVE GONE ON TO CONSIDER WHETHER THE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS WERE EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court and remitting the matter to the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEP), determined Supreme Court exceeded its review powers with respect to DEP’s response to petitioner’s (Union Carbide’s) FOIL requests. Union Carbide sought documents relating to a study which determined the radioactive slag found at sites owned by Union Carbide was not the same as the radioactive slag produced by Union Carbide’s predecessor. The DEP had determined the FOIL requests were moot because the requested documents had been produced. Supreme Court properly held that the requests were not moot, but then improperly went on to consider whether the additional requested documents were protected from disclosure:

… [T]he administrative determination was that the first two FOIL requests were closed and that the administrative appeal with respect to the third FOIL request was moot given the production of responsive records prior to and following the filing of the appeal. As such, Supreme Court’s review was limited to whether the appeal was moot on the basis offered by the FOIL Appeals Officer, that being, whether all responsive records had been provided. By virtue of respondent’s in camera submission of additional documents to the court, it was evident that all responsive records had not been provided, and the administrative determination should have been annulled. However, in reviewing the subject documents and finding that those documents, with the exception of the site classification report, were statutorily exempted from disclosure, Supreme Court went beyond its mandate to “judge the propriety of [the agency’s] action solely by the grounds invoked by the agency” … . Accordingly, there was no basis for the court to determine that any exemption justified the withholding or redacting of the additional documents submitted to the court … . Inasmuch as the record demonstrates that additional documents responsive to petitioners’ FOIL requests exist and were not yet produced or examined by respondent’s FOIL Appeals Officer, we remit to Supreme Court to direct respondent to respond to petitioners’ FOIL requests by reviewing the additional subject documents and to determine in the first instance whether they are statutorily exempted from disclosure under the Public Officers Law. Matter of Union Carbide Corp. v New York State Dept. of Envtl. Conservation, 2020 NY Slip Op 07445, Second Dept 12-10-20

 

You might also like
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER HOTEL DEFENDANTS WERE VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR THE NEGLIGENCE OF A SNOWMOBILE TOUR GUIDE UNDER AN APPARENT AGENCY THEORY.
Payroll Deduction for Health Benefits Should Be Added to Teacher’s Salary When Calculating Retirement Benefit
Administrative Decision Maker, Who Had Previously Ruled Against Petitioner/Employee in Disciplinary Proceedings, Should Have Been Disqualified from Reviewing Hearing Officer’s Recommendations Made in a Related Subsequent Proceeding
Tour Musicians Were Employees of Columbia Artists Management; Workers Who Loaded and Unloaded Equipment Were Not Employees
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE ONLINE PLATFORM WHICH CONNECTED PERSONS WITH CERTAIN SKILLS TO THOSE SEEKING TO HIRE FOR ODD JOBS WAS NOT AN EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP, CLAIMANT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT).
Truck Driver Was Employee
Court’s Limited Arbitration-Review Powers Described—Collateral Estoppel Precluded the District from Raising the “Faithless Servant Doctrine” in a Related Lawsuit Because the Arbitrator Concluded the Doctrine Did Not Apply
Statute of Limitations Defense in Article 78 Proceeding Waived Because Not Raised in Answer or Pre-Answer Motion to Dismiss

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

THE QUI TAM COMPLAINT ALLEGING INSURERS FAILED TO ACCURATELY REPORT UNCLAIMED... PLAINTIFF, WHO WAS BORN TWO YEARS BEFORE HIS MOTHER AND FATHER WERE MARRIED,...