You are here: / / THE ZIP CODES ASSOCIATED WITH THE HOME ADDRESSES OF STATE EMPLOYEES SHOULD...

THE ZIP CODES ASSOCIATED WITH THE HOME ADDRESSES OF STATE EMPLOYEES SHOULD NOT BE PROVIDED PURSUANT TO A FOIL REQUEST BECAUSE THE FULL HOME ADDRESSES COULD EASILY BE FOUND ON THE INTERNET BY SEARCHING FOR AN EMPLOYEE’S NAME WITH THE RELATED ZIP CODE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Garry, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the request for the zip codes association with the residences of state employees should not have been granted on invasion-of-privacy grounds. The court noted that the employees’ full addresses could easily be determined by using the Internet to search for the person by name along with the related zip code:

As to special protections for state employee records, the Legislature’s enactment of Public Officers Law § 89 (7) indicates its desire to protect public employees from harassment at home. That statute provides that “[n]othing in [FOIL] shall require the disclosure of the home address of an officer or employee” of the state … . Moreover, by executive order the Governor has prohibited state agencies from disclosing state employees’ home addresses except when “compelled . . . by lawful service of process, subpoena, court order, or as otherwise required by law” … . These policy goals are relevant to the interests in protecting the personal privacy of government employees.

The scenario of numerous — or perhaps most — state employees being contacted at home by a private individual or organization that knows who they are, where they live and what they do for a living seems likely to be offensive and objectionable to most reasonable people … . Thus, release of home zip codes would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy under these circumstances. Accordingly, as respondent met its burden of proving that the requested zip codes are exempt from disclosure under FOIL, Supreme Court erred in ordering the disclosure of such data. Matter of Suhr v New York State Dept. of Civ. Serv., 2021 NY Slip Op 01113, Third Dept 2-18-21

 

You might also like
DEFENDANT PLED GUILTY IN RETURN FOR A SENTENCE WHICH WAS LATER DETERMINED TO BE UNAUTHORIZED; DEFENDANT THEN CONSENTED TO A RESENTENCE WHICH WAS LONGER THAN THAT ORIGINALLY PROMISED; BECAUSE DEFENDANT WAS NOT EXPRESSLY AFFORDED THE OPPORTUNITY TO WITHDRAW HER PLEA, THE RESENTENCE WAS VACATED AND THE MATTER REMITTED; THE SENTENCING JUDGE CAN FASHION A SENTENCE WHICH IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ORIGINAL PROMISE BY REDUCING THE OFFENSE CHARGED (THIRD DEPT).
Transfer to Another County for Probation Did Not Divest Sentencing Court of Jurisdiction Over Defendant’s Violation of His Intermittent Sentence​
Court Should Not Have Precluded Expert Evidence About the Quality of Representation Received by Indigent Defendants
REPORT OF INADEQUATE GUARDIANSHIP MAINTAINED BY THE CENTRAL REGISTER OF CHILD ABUSE AND MALTREATMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN AMENDED TO BE UNFOUNDED AND EXPUNGED.
AFTER REVERSAL BY THE COURT OF APPEALS, THE EXPULSION OF PETITIONER STUDENT FOR SEXUAL MISCONDUCT IN VIOLATION OF THE COLLEGE’S STUDENT CODE CONFIRMED, COLLEGE APPEALS BOARD HAD THE POWER TO IMPOSE ANY AVAILABLE REMEDY INCLUDING EXPULSION (THIRD DEPT).
CAP ON STATE MEDICAID FUNDS USED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS AND EXECUTIVE PAY PROPERLY PROMULGATED BY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, CAP ON EXECUTIVE PAY FROM ALL SOURCES EXCEEDED DOH’S REGULATORY AUTHORITY.
Sentencing Court’s Reference to a Fine for Driving While Intoxicated as “Mandatory” Required Remittal for Resentencing
IN THIS “ATTEMPTED CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON” AND “FALSIYFING BUSINESS RECORDS” PROSECUTION, THE PEOPLE DID NOT PROVE DEFENDANT WAS SUBJECT TO A RESTRAINING ORDER ISSUED AFTER A HEARING OF WHICH HE HAD NOTICE AND IN WHICH HE COULD HAVE PARTICIPATED; THEREFORE THE PEOPLE DID NOT PROVE HIS ANSWERING “NO” TO THE QUESTION WHETHER HE WAS SUBJECT TO A RESTRAINING ORDER WAS FALSE; CONVICTIONS REVERSED (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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE IN FAILING TO INVESTIGATE FOUR WITNESSES WHO... QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER LEAVING AN ELEVEN-YEAR-OLD BOY UNSUPERVISED CONSTITUTED...