You are here: / / PETITIONER WAS ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES AS THE PREVAILING PARTY...
,

PETITIONER WAS ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES AS THE PREVAILING PARTY BECAUSE THE POLICE DEPARTMENT TURNED OVER THE REQUESTED BODY CAM VIDEOS VOLUNTARILY WHILE THE PROCEEDING WAS PENDING; THE RESPONDENTS HAD NO REASONABLE BASIS FOR DENYING THE REQUEST (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined petitioner was entitled to attorney’s fees in this FOIL action which sought police body cam videos for an incident involving deadly force. Petitioner was the prevailing party because the respondents voluntarily provided the videos while the proceeding was pending:

… [P]etitioner substantially prevailed when respondents, during the pendency of this proceeding, disclosed the records sought in the FOIL request … . “[T]he voluntariness of . . . disclosure is irrelevant to the issue of whether petitioner substantially prevailed” … . …

… [R]espondents had no reasonable basis for denying access to the records sought. To invoke the FOIL exemption applicable to records that ‘are compiled for law enforcement purposes and which, if disclosed, would . . . interfere with law enforcement investigations’ … , an ‘agency must identify the generic kinds of documents for which the exemption is claimed, and the generic risks posed by disclosure of these categories of documents’ … . ‘Put slightly differently, the agency must still fulfill its burden under Public Officers Law § 89(4)(b) to articulate a factual basis for the exemption’ … . In response to the FOIL request, NYPD did identify the generic kinds of documents at issue; it is undisputed that the responsive records, which have now been disclosed, were videos recorded by body cameras worn by NYPD officers during an incident in which NYPD used deadly force. However, NYPD’s assertions in response to the FOIL request that disclosure would interfere with an ongoing internal investigation into the incident, which was being conducted by the Force Investigation Division at the time, was conclusory in the absence of any factual showing as to how disclosure would have interfered with that investigation.” Matter of Dioso Faustino Freedom of Info. Law Request v New York City, 2021 NY Slip Op 00907, First Dept 2-11-21

 

You might also like
THE REPEAL OF THE EMERGENCY OR DISASTER TREATMENT PROTECTION ACT (EDTPA) WAS NOT RETROACTIVE; THEREFORE DEFENDANT’S NURSING HOME WAS IMMUNE FROM SUIT STEMMING FROM PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S DEATH FROM COVID-19 (FIRST DEPT).
SIDEWALK DEFECT WAS NOT TRIVIAL AS A MATTER OF LAW, TRIVIALITY IS NOT A QUESTION OF DIMENSIONS ALONE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY AFFIDAVIT DID NOT LAY A PROPER FOUNDATION FOR THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE ATTACHED DOCUMENTS, THE DOCUMENTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DEEMED INADMISSIBLE BECAUSE THE PLAINTIFF DID NOT OBJECT TO THEM AND RELIED ON THEM IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION (FIRST DEPT).
REDACTED DOCUMENTS AND A SEALED RECORD MUST BE UNREDACTED AND UNSEALED, CRITERIA AND PROCEDURE FOR REDACTION AND SEALING EXPLAINED.
PLAINTIFF STRUCK BY A PLANK WHICH FELL OFF A SCAFFOLD, SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON PLAINTIFF’S LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY GRANTED.
People Were Not Required to Disclose (Prior to Trial) Confession Made by Defendant to Health Care Worker
TAKING MEASUREMENTS IN PREPARATION FOR ROOF WORK IS AN ACTIVITY COVERED UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1), PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BASED UPON HIS FALL FROM A BROKEN LADDER WAS PROPERLY GRANTED.
COMPLAINT ALLEGING BREACH OF A JOINT VENTURE AGREEMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, TWO ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF A JOINT VENTURE, SHARING COSTS AND CONTROL, WERE ABSENT (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

PETITIONERS WERE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY DETERMINATION IN THIS EXECUTIVE LAW 63... FRAUD WAS NOT ADEQUATELY PLED, THE SIX-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DID NOT APPLY...