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 IN THIS FOIL PROCEEDING; RESPONDENT HAD AGREED TO ALLOW PETITIONER TO VIEW THE ELECTRONIC FILES USING ITS VIEWING PROGRAM, BUT HAD DENIED, FOR NO GOOD REASON, PETITIONER’S REQUEST TO TRANSFER THE FILES TO A FLASH DRIVE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined petitioner was entitled to attorney’s fees because petitioner substantially prevailed on certain requests for documents after commencing an Article 78 proceeding. With respect to one of the requests, although respondent had agreed to allow petitioner to view the requested electronic files using respondent’s viewing program, respondent, without good reason, denied petitioner’s request to place the files on a flash drive:

We agree with petitioner that Supreme Court erred in denying its request for counsel fees. As relevant here, a court in a FOIL proceeding “shall assess, against such agency involved, reasonable [counsel] fees and other litigation costs . . . in any case . . . in which such person has substantially prevailed and the court finds that the agency had no reasonable basis for denying access” to the records sought … . “‘A petitioner substantially prevails under Public Officers Law § 89 (4) (c) when it receives all the information that it requested and to which it was entitled in response to the underlying FOIL litigation'” … .

Petitioner substantially prevailed in the litigation. Through use of the judicial process, petitioner received documents responsive to demand Nos. 2-5 in the medium it desired and obtained a certification under demand Nos. 6-8 pertaining to multifamily homes … . Contrary to Supreme Court’s finding, the fact that the disclosure under demand Nos. 2-5 stemmed from a mutual accord between the parties does not change the analysis, as “the voluntariness of an agency’s disclosure after the commencement of a CPLR article 78 proceeding will not preclude a finding that a litigant has substantially prevailed” … . Moreover, respondent did not have a reasonable basis for the precommencement denial of the records responsive to demand Nos. 2-5, as evidenced by its subsequent production of said documents in electronic form. Matter of Aron Law PLLC v Town of Fallsburg, 2021 NY Slip Op 06593, Third Dept 11-24-21

 

You might also like
DEFENSE COUNSEL EXPLAINED HIS STRATEGIES BEHIND WAIVING THE HUNTLEY HEARING AND REFRAINING FROM CONSULTING AND PRESENTING EXPERTS IN THE DEFENDANT’S FIRST DEGREE RAPE TRIAL; THEREFORE DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION ON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE GROUNDS WAS PROPERLY DENIED (THIRD DEPT).
TESTIMONY ABOUT DEFENDANT’S ASSERTION OF HIS RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED, ERROR DEEMED HARMLESS HOWEVER.
THE PETITION SEEKING REVIEW OF THE BOARD OF ELECTIONS’ DECISION TO PURCHASE NEW VOTING MACHINES WHICH OPERATE BY SCANNING A BAR CODE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED ON THE GROUND PETITIONER, COMMON CAUSE NEW YORK, DID NOT DEMONSTRATE AN INJURY-IN-FACT; COMMON CAUSE ARGUED THE USE OF A BAR CODE WHICH IS SCANNED BY THE MACHINE WILL IMPEDE VERIFICATION OF THE VOTING BALLOTS; THERE WAS A TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (THIRD DEPT).
CORRECTION OFFICER NOT ENTITLED TO TWO-YEAR LEAVE OF ABSENCE; THERE WAS SUPPORT IN THE RECORD FOR THE FINDING PETITIONER’S PHYSICAL CONFRONTATION WITH AN INMATE WAS NOT AN ASSAULT WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE CIVIL SERVICE LAW (SECOND DEPT).
NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION CAUSE OF ACTION STEMMING FROM HARASSMENT AND BULLYING BY FELLOW STUDENTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED.
DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A DOWNWARD DEPARTURE BECAUSE THE VICTIM WAS NEARLY 17 AND NO FORCE WAS INVOLVED (THIRD DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE VICTIM’S FACIAL SCARS WERE SHOWN TO THE JURY NO DESCRIPTION OF THE SCARS APPEARS IN THE TRIAL RECORD AND NO PHOTOGRAPH OF THE SCARS WAS INTRODUCED; THEREFORE THE SERIOUS DISFIGUREMENT ELEMENT OF ASSAULT FIRST WAS NOT DEMONSTRATED AND THE ASSAULT FIRST CONVICTION WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE; CONVICTION REDUCED TO ATTEMPTED ASSAULT FIRST (THIRD DEPT).
PURSUANT TO ECL 23-2711, THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ISSUE A MINING PERMIT BECAUSE THE TOWN LAW PROHIBITED MINING (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

THE WIFE’S TEMPORARY MAINTENANCE ARREARS SHOULD HAVE BEEN CALCULATED FROM... PLAINTIFF STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR “GENDER-BIASED VERBAL ASSAULT,...