You are here: / / IF A GOVERNMENT AGENCY TO WHICH A FOIL REQUEST HAS BEEN MADE DOES NOT POSSESS...

IF A GOVERNMENT AGENCY TO WHICH A FOIL REQUEST HAS BEEN MADE DOES NOT POSSESS ANY RESPONSIVE DOCUMENTS, THE AGENCY MUST PROVIDE A CERTIFICATION TO THAT EFFECT (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that if the records petitioner sought in his FOIL request do not exist or cannot be found, the respondent must so certify:

… [T]he statute commands that a government entity that does not supply any record in response to a FOIL request “shall certify that it does not have possession of such record or that such record cannot be found after diligent search” (Public Officers Law § 89 [3] [a] … ). Although “[t]he statute does not specify the manner in which an agency must certify that documents cannot be located” … , respondent failed to provide any such certification … . Accordingly, “we remit the matter to Supreme Court for a determination of whether respondent has any other documents in [his] possession which are responsive to petitioner’s FOIL request” … , or, if no responsive records can be found after a diligent search, for respondent to provide a proper certification as required … . Matter of Thomas v Kane, 2022 NY Slip Op 02164, Third Dept 3-31-22

​Practice Point: If a government agency to which a FOIL request has been made does not possess any responsive documents, the statute requires the agency to provide a certification to that effect.

 

You might also like
Lump Sum Settlement with Third Party Barred Transfer of Employer’s Liability for Future Medical Payments to the Special Fund
Failure to Apply for Zoning Variance Re: Sale of Adult Materials Rendered Plaintiff’s Free-Speech Challenge to the Code Speculative, i.e., Not Ripe for Review
STATE TROOPER IMMUNE FROM A PERSONAL INJURY SUIT BASED UPON THE TROOPER’S DISCRETIONARY ACTS.
DEFENDANT’S PLEA ALLOCATION NEGATED AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF THE OFFENSE, PRESERVATION OF THE ERROR NOT REQUIRED, GUILTY PLEA VACATED (THIRD DEPT).
Question of Fact About Whether Solar Panels Violate a Restrictive Covenant Precluded Dismissal of Complaint 
GENERAL RELEASE WAS NOT LIMITED TO A 2007 ACTION AND THEREFORE PRECLUDED THE 2014 ACTION, A UNILATERAL MISTAKE DOES NOT INVALIDATE A CONTRACT (THIRD DEPT).
In a Neglect Proceeding, the Review of Sealed Documents by the Evaluating Psychologist Required that His Testimony Be Entirely Discounted
DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO BE HEARD ON APPLICATION FOR RESENTENCING UNDER DRUG LAW REFORM ACT, DENIAL OF APPLICATION ON THE PAPERS REVERSED.

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

EACH TIME PLAINTIFF’S MARKETING DIRECTOR ENTERED A CONTRACT WITH A COMPANY... THE CORRECTION LAW DOES NOT REQUIRE AN INMATE RESIDENTIAL TREATMENT FACILITY...