You are here: / / IN RESPONSE TO PETITIONER’S FOIL REQUESTS, THE TOWN DID NOT CITE...
, ,

IN RESPONSE TO PETITIONER’S FOIL REQUESTS, THE TOWN DID NOT CITE ANY EXEMPTION FOR THE IDENTIFIED RECORDS WHICH WERE NOT PRODUCED AND DID NOT CERTIFY THOSE RECORDS DID NOT EXIST; IN ADDITION THE TOWN DID NOT EXPLAIN THE REASONS FOR THE REDACTIONS IN THE PRODUCED RECORDS; ALL IN VIOLATION OF THE PUBLIC OFFICERS LAW; MATTER REMITTED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court and remitting the matter, determined that the respondent town did not explain its failure to produce the determinations made in 51 of the 54 appeals identified in response to the petitioner’s FOIL request and did not explain the reasons for redactions made in the records which were provided:

… Supreme Court erred in dismissing so much of the petition/complaint as sought, in effect, to compel the production of all responsive records or, in the alternative, to certify that the respondent does not possess the requested records and that they could not be located after a diligent search. The respondent does not dispute that it failed to produce the determinations made in 51 of the 54 appeals that were identified in response to the petitioner’s request. The respondent did not claim a specific exemption to disclosure in denying the petitioner’s request for those determinations. Accordingly, the respondent was required to either produce those records or certify that it does not possess the requested records and that they could not be located after a diligent search (see Public Officers Law § 89[3][a] …).

Supreme Court also erred by determining that the respondent’s redactions were permissible to prevent unwarranted invasions of personal privacy pursuant to Public Officers Law § 87(2)(b). In an administrative appeal of an agency’s denial of access to records, the agency is required to “fully explain in writing . . . the reasons for further denial” (Public Officers Law § 89[4][a]). “[J]udicial review of an administrative determination is limited to the grounds invoked by the agency and the court is powerless to affirm the administrative action by substituting what it considers to be a more adequate or proper basis” … . Here, the respondent failed to respond to the petitioner’s administrative appeal, and failed to otherwise reference Public Officers Law § 87(2)(b) as a justification for the redactions. To provide the respondent the benefit of justifications it did not advance in the first instance “contravenes Court of Appeals precedent ‘as well as the spirit and purpose of FOIL'” … . Matter of Aron Law, PLLC v Town of Hempstead, 2025 NY Slip Op 05519, Second Dept 10-8-25

Practice Point: Under FOIL (Public Officers Law) identified records must be produced unless an exemption is demonstrated to apply or the respondent certifies that the records could not be found after a diligent search. In addition, the reasons for any redactions in produced records must be explained. Here Supreme Court should not have dismissed aspects of the FOIL petition in the absence of these required responses by the town.

 

You might also like
SUPREME COURT DID NOT HAVE SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION OVER AN ACTION TAKEN BY THE UNKECHAUG INDIAN NATION TO EXCLUDE A MEMBER OF THE NATION FROM A PARCEL OF NATION LAND (SECOND DEPT).
NO ONE AT THE DEFENDANT HEALTH CLUB WHEN PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT SUFFERED A HEART ATTACK WAS CERTIFIED TO PROVIDE EMERGENCY AID AND THE EMPLOYEE DELAYED CALLING 911; PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
SUSPENDED ATTORNEY ENTITLED TO QUANTUM MERUIT COMPENSATION FOR WORK DONE PRIOR TO THE SUSPENSION (SECOND DEPT).
INSTALLING ELECTRIC CABLES IS CONSTRUCTION WORK WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 241(6); PLAINTIFF, WHO WAS STRUCK IN THE EYE BY A CABLE, SUFFICIENTLY DEMONSTRATED THE EYE-PROTECTION-EQUIPMENT REGULATION IN THE INDUSTRIAL CODE APPLIED (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE OUT OF POSSESSION LANDLORDS WERE OBLIGATED TO MAKE REPAIRS, THEY DEMONSTRATED THEY DID NOT CREATE THE ALLEGED DANGEROUS CONDITION AND DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF IT, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
PROOF OF MAILING OF THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE TO THE CORRECT ADDRESS WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE INITIAL MOTION PAPERS AND THEREFORE WAS NOT PART OF PLAINTIFF’S ATTEMPT TO MAKE OUT A PRIMA FACIE CASE; IN ADDTIION, THE PROOF OF MAILING OF THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE WAS DEFICIENT (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENSE COUNSEL INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO MAKE A MOTION FOR A DOWNWARD DEPARTURE IN THIS SORA RISK-LEVEL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING (SECOND DEPT).
THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTED THE FINDING OF A SINGLE INSTANCE OF NEGLECT OF FATHER’S 14-YEAR-OLD DAUGHTER; BUT THAT EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT A FINDING OF DERIVATIVE NEGLECT RE: FATHER’S YOUNGER DAUGHTER (SECOND 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

ENGAGING IN COUNSELING SHOULD NOT BE A CONDITION OF VISITATION; THE COURT SHOULD... IN THIS CHILD VICTIMS ACT SUIT AGAINST THE COUNTY ALLEGING NEGLIGENT PLACEMENT...