You are here: / / THE QUESTIONNAIRES FILLED OUT BY APPLICANTS FOR CITY JUDICIAL POSITIONS...
, , ,

THE QUESTIONNAIRES FILLED OUT BY APPLICANTS FOR CITY JUDICIAL POSITIONS WERE PROTECTED FROM THE FOIL REQUEST BY THE PERSONAL PRIVACY EXEMPTION; AN APPELLATE COURT DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO CONSIDER AN UNPRESERVED ISSUE IN AN ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined judicial questionnaires filled out by applicants for city judicial positions were protected from the FOIL request by the personal privacy exemption. The First Department noted that it did not have the authority in an article 78 proceeding to consider an unpreserved issue in the interest of justice:

… [T]he City properly applied the personal privacy exemption (Public Officer’s Law § 89[2][a]) to deny petitioner’s FOIL request in its entirety, as the City sustained its burden of establishing that disclosure of the records sought in this case — “all Uniform Judicial Questionnaires for applicants . . . under review by the Mayor’s Advisory Committee on the Judiciary” as of October 21, 2020 — would “constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy” (Public Officers Law § 87[2][b] …). Disclosure of the questionnaire, which states the word “CONFIDENTIAL” in upper-case letters and boldface near the top of its first page, would undermine the assurances of confidentiality provided to candidates for judicial office … .

Moreover, disclosure would create a chilling effect, thus potentially diminishing the candor of applicants and causing others to decide against applying for judicial positions. The questionnaire contains extensive questions touching on highly personal and sensitive matters, such as personal relationships, reasons for leaving jobs, reasons for periods of unemployment, substance abuse, arrests, criminal convictions, testifying as a witness in criminal cases, and reasons for anticipated difficulty in handling the stresses involved in being a judge, as well as a catch-all question at the end of the questionnaire asking for any other information, specifically including unfavorable information, that could bear on the evaluation of the judicial candidate. In addition to the particular contents of the questionnaires, disclosure of the very fact that certain candidates submitted the questionnaires could harm those persons’ reputations by revealing that they sought to leave their jobs, or were unsuccessful in their applications for judicial positions … . Matter of Fisher v City of N.Y. Off. of the Mayor, 2023 NY Slip Op 05468, First Dept 10-31-23

Practice Point: Here the questionnaires filled out by applicants for city judicial positions were protected from the FOIL request by the personal privacy exemption.

Practice Point: In an article 78 proceeding an appellate court cannot consider an unpreserved issue in the interest of justice.

 

You might also like
THE SORA RISK-LEVEL MOTION COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE RE-OPENED THE HEARING TO AMEND ITS ORIGINAL RISK-LEVEL DETERMINATION; THE CRITERIA FOR A MOTION TO RENEW WERE NOT MET; THE “INHERENT AUTHORITY” TO RE-OPEN APPLIES ONLY WHEN THE ORIGINAL RULING WAS BASED ON A MISTAKE; THE PEOPLE WERE NOT DEPRIVED OF THE OPPORTUNITY TO APPLY FOR AN UPWARD DEPARTURE (FIRST DEPT).
NOT-FOR-PROFIT CORPORATION LAW PETITION TO DISINTER THE REMAINS OF ARCHBISHOP FULTON SHEEN AND MOVE THEM FROM ST PATRICK’S CATHEDRAL TO PEORIA ILLINOIS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED WITHOUT A HEARING (FIRST DEPT).
IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO HAVE POSSESSION OF THE MORTGAGE, AS OPPOSED TO THE NOTE, AT THE TIME OF THE COMMENCEMENT OF A FORECLOSURE ACTION, EVIDENCE ADMISSIBLE UNDER THE BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT PLAINTIFF’S STANDING (FIRST DEPT).
Irrelevant Information in Presentence Report Should Not Have Been Allowed In “Dangerous Sex Offender” Proceeding
DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A DOWNWARD DEPARTURE FROM LEVEL TWO TO LEVEL ONE IN THIS CHILD PORNOGRAPHY CASE (FIRST DEPT).
Frivolous Lawsuit Warranted Sanctions and the Award of Attorney’s Fees
MOTION IN LIMINE CANNOT BE USED TO DETERMINE AN ISSUE OF MATERIAL FACT, THE MOTION WAS ACTUALLY AN UNTIMELY MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
SCAFFOLD DID NOT HAVE A SAFETY RAILING, PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION.

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

SENDING THE NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE TO BOTH BORROWERS IN THE SAME ENVELOPE VIOLATED... AFTER FINDING SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE BY DEFENDANTS, THE JUDGE FASHIONED AN ADVERSE...