You are here: / / THE FOIL REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS PREPARED BY COUNSEL FOR THE BOARD OF PAROLE...
, ,

THE FOIL REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS PREPARED BY COUNSEL FOR THE BOARD OF PAROLE WAS PROPERLY DENIED; THE DOCUMENTS ARE PROTECTED FROM DISCLOSURE BY THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, determined the FOIL requests made to the Board of Parole of the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS) were properly denied. The documents were protected by attorney-client privilege:

… (DOCCS) properly withheld 11 documents prepared by counsel for the Board of Parole as privileged communications exempt from Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) disclosure. Counsel prepared the documents to train and advise Board of Parole commissioners on how to comply with their legal duties and obligations. The documents reflect counsel’s legal analysis of statutory, regulatory and decisional law and they therefore constitute attorney-client communications that were prepared “for the purpose of facilitating the rendition of legal advice or services, in the course of a professional relationship,” specifically, to provide guidance on matters relevant to the Commissioners’ exercise of their discretionary authority … . Accordingly, DOCCS properly invoked the statutory FOIL exemption for privileged matters (see Public Officers Law § 87 [2] [a]; CPLR 4503 [a]). Matter of Appellate Advocates v New York State Dept. of Corr. & Community Supervision, 2023 NY Slip Op 06466, CtApp 12-19-23

Practice Point: A FOIL request for documents protected by attorney-client privilege is properly denied.

 

You might also like
DECEDENT’S WORK AS A WELDER NOT A COVERED ACTIVITY UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1) (CT APP).
Whether Arresting Officers Had Reasonable Suspicion to Stop and Detain Is a Mixed Question of Law and Fact Which Cannot Be Reviewed by the Court of Appeals
TIER 3 NYC POLICE OFFICERS CANNOT COUNT YEARS OF NON-POLICE SERVICE TOWARD THE 22 YEARS OF POLICE SERVICE REQUIRED FOR RETIREMENT ELIGIBILITY (CT APP).
OKAY FOR THE JURY TO CONSIDER WHETHER DEFENDANT’S SILENCE AND EVASIVENESS DURING A PHONE CALL WITH THE VICTIM RECORDED BY THE JAIL WAS AN ADOPTIVE ADMISSION.
CITY PROPERLY HELD LIABLE FOR ACCIDENT RELATED TO SPEEDING BECAUSE OF ITS FAILURE TO IMPLEMENT TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURES TO REDUCE DRIVERS’ TENDENCY TO SPEED.
SORA COURT PROPERLY REJECTED DOWNWARD DEPARTURE BECAUSE CONVICTION FOR ENDANGERING THE WELFARE OF A CHILD DID NOT INVOLVE A SEXUAL OFFENSE.
Defendant Who Was Not Informed His Guilty Plea Would Result in Deportation Was Unable to Demonstrate He Was Prejudiced by the Omission
FOREIGN DEFENDANTS’ USE OF A NEW YORK CORRESPONDENT BANK ACCOUNT IN A SWISS BANK PROVIDED JURISDICTION OVER A LAWSUIT AGAINST THE BANK BY A SAUDI NATIONAL.

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

THE SCAFFOLD ON WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS WORKING COLLAPSED FOR NO APPARENT REASON;... LABOR LAW 240(1) DOES NOT COVER INJURY TO A MECHANIC REPAIRING A VEHICLE, EVEN...