You are here: / / BECAUSE THE RESPONDENT CREATED AMBIGUITY ABOUT WHETHER IT WAS STILL CONSIDERING...
,

BECAUSE THE RESPONDENT CREATED AMBIGUITY ABOUT WHETHER IT WAS STILL CONSIDERING PETITIONER’S FOIL REQUEST AFTER EXPIRATION OF THE 10-DAY CONSTRUCTIVE-DENIAL PERIOD, THE FOUR-MONTH PERIOD FOR COMMENCING AN ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING DID NOT START ON THE CONSTRUCTIVE-DENIAL DATE; THE ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING WAS TIMELY COMMENCED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the respondent Office of Court Administration (OCA) gave petitioner the impression it was still considering petitioner’s FOIL request after the 10-day period for a response from the OCA expired on May 27, 2022. The OCA produced some documents on June 27, 2022. Therefore, the four-month period for commencing an Article 78 proceeding did not start on May 27, but rather on June 27, rendering the Article 78 commenced on November 8, 2022, timely:

… OCA’s ongoing consideration of the request created an ambiguity and the impression of nonfinality regarding its May 27 constructive denial … . Twice, on June 16 and August 5, 2022, OCA issued substantive rulings on the FOIL request, stating that petitioner had 30 days to take a written appeal of the determination. OCA’s treatment of its May 27 constructive denial as a final agency determination is inconsistent with its statements notifying petitioner that it had opportunities for further administrative appeals … . Thus, petitioner was justified in pursuing the administrative appeals that OCA appeared to offer rather than commencing what would have been a timely article 78 proceeding.

OCA created further doubt about the finality of its May 27 constructive denial when it wrote in its June 23, 2022 email that its substantive response to the FOIL request rendered the appeal of the constructive denial moot and issued a ruling on petitioner’s appeal. OCA’s contention that petitioner’s May 13, 2022 appeal was denied with finality on May 27 is incompatible with its later characterization of that appeal as moot. Similarly, the July 27, 2022 production letter from OCA stated that OCA was producing records in response to petitioner’s FOIL request, which, according to OCA, had been “remanded back . . . in response” to petitioner’s appeal. Petitioner was justified in its understanding that its request had not been denied with finality on May 27, as it could not have been both conclusively denied and simultaneously “remanded back . . . in response” to petitioner’s June 23, 2022 appeal.

Because OCA created an ambiguity, it is resolved against the agency, and the petition is deemed timely … . Matter of Portfolio Media, Inc. v New York State Off. of Ct. Admin., 2024 NY Slip Op 01523, First Dept 3-19-24

Practice Point: Here the respondent did not respond to petitioner’s FOIL request within 10 days. But because the respondent created ambiguity about whether it was still considering the request after the constructive-denial date, the constructive-denial date should not have been used to calculate the four-month period for commencing an Article 78 proceeding. Therefore the Article 78 was timely commenced.

 

You might also like
Res Ipsa Loquitur Doctrine Can Apply to an Elevator Maintenance Company Even Where there Is No Proof the Company Had Actual or Constructive Notice of Elevator Misleveling
SEIZURE OF CREDIT CARDS FROM UNDER THE HOOD OF DEFENDANT’S CAR WAS NOT THE RESULT OF AN ILLEGAL SEARCH, POLICE WERE FOLLOWING A PROCEDURE TO SAFEGUARD THE CAR FROM THEFT (FIRST DEPT).
DATE OF WOMAN’S DISAPPEARANCE, NOT THE STATUTORY DEFAULT DATE FIVE YEARS LATER, WAS THE CORRECT DATE OF DEATH (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENSE COUNSEL DID NOT WAIVE HIS CLIENT’S RIGHT TO HAVE HIM ATTEND THE LINEUP IDENTIFICATION BY SENDING HIS PARALEGAL, WHO WAS TURNED AWAY; DEFENSE COUNSEL SHOULD HAVE BEEN TOLD HIS PRESENCE WAS REQUIRED (FIRST DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE SIDEWALK DEFECT WAS TAKEN A YEAR BEFORE THE SLIP AND FALL, PLAINTIFF’S TESTIMONY THE PHOTO ACCURATELY AND FAIRLY DEPICTED THE CONDITION OF THE SIDEWALK AT THE TIME OF THE FALL WAS SUFFICIENT (FIRST DEPT). ​
THE FACT THAT PLAINTIFF ATTORNEY (1) WAS AN AT-WILL EMPLOYEE AND (2) MAY NOT BE PAID WITHIN ONE YEAR DID NOT RENDER THE ORAL CONTRACT ENTITLING PLAINTIFF TO LEGAL FEES VOID UNDER THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS, BREACH OF IMPLIED CONTRACT AND UNJUST ENRICHMENT CAUSES WERE PROPERLY PLED IN THE ALTERNATIVE (FIRST DEPT).
SELF-EXECUTING CONDITIONAL DISCOVERY ORDER BECAME ABSOLUTE UPON NON-COMPLIANCE; A MOTION TO VACATE, NOT AN APPEAL, IS THE PROPER PROCEDURE TO CONTEST THE ORDER ON THE GROUND OF EXCUSABLE DEFAULT; DEFENDANTS TOOK NO ACTION TO AVOID THE DEFAULT (FIRST DEPT).
CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF STOLEN PROPERTY FOURTH AND FIFTH DEGREE ARE LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSES OF CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF STOLEN PROPERTY THIRD DEGREE; UNAUTHORIZED USE OF A VEHICLE, HOWEVER, IS NOT BECAUSE THE CRIMINAL POSSESSION STATUTE DOES NOT REQUIRE POSSESSION OF A VEHICLE (FIRST 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 COMPLAINT STATED CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST NYC ALLEGING CONSTITUTIONAL AND... IT WAS NOT CLEAR FROM THE RECORD WHETHER THE JUDGE IMPROPERLY DEEMED YOUTHFUL...