You are here: / / Inmate’s FOIL Request for Prison Directive Should Have Been Granted
,

Inmate’s FOIL Request for Prison Directive Should Have Been Granted

The Third Department determined the inmate’s Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) request for a Department of Corrections directive should have been granted:

…”[T]here is a presumption that government documents are available for inspection, and the burden rests on the agency resisting disclosure to demonstrate that they are exempt under Public Officers Law § 87 (2) by articulating a specific and particularized justification” … .  Although the basis of the denial of petitioner’s request was that the disclosure may endanger the life or safety of a person (see Public Officers Law § 87 [2] [f]), we fail to see how the disclosure of DOCCS Directive No. 4004, which pertains to the specifications for creating unusual incident reports, poses a danger to lives or to anyone’s safety … . Accordingly, the directive must be disclosed. Matter of Flores v Fischer, 516131, 3rd Dept 10-24-13

 

You might also like
CLAIMANT TRUCK DRIVER WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF FLS UNDER THE COMMON LAW AND UNDER THE LABOR LAW, DESPITE THE FACT THAT FLS DID NOT MAINTAIN A FLEET OF TRUCKS; CLAIMANT WAS THEREFORE ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT).
PETITIONER, A COURT OFFICER, SLIPPED AND FELL ON A WET FLOOR IN THE COURTHOUSE; THE FALL WAS AN ACCIDENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE RETIREMENT AND SOCIAL SECURITY LAW (THIRD DEPT).
DENIAL OF PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR TWO CORRECTIONAL-STAFF WITNESSES WAS ERROR, DETERMINATION ANNULLED.
CLAIMANT PRECLUDED FROM FURTHER WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BENEFITS FOR FAILURE TO SEEK PERMISSION BEFORE SETTLING A RELATED TORT ACTION, MEANING OF THIRD PARTY ACTION IN THIS CONTEXT EXPLAINED.
THE 3RD DEPARTMENT REFUSED TO AMEND THE NOTICE OF APPEAL TO INSERT AN ORDER FROM WHICH NO APPEAL HAD BEEN TAKEN; APPEAL DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).
BRADY MATERIAL TURNED OVER TO DEFENDANT AFTER HE PLED GUILTY MAY HAVE AFFECTED HIS DECISIONS ABOUT WHAT PLEA OFFER TO ACCEPT AND WHETHER TO MOVE TO DISMISS CERTAIN CHARGES; THEREFORE DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO VACATE THE CONVICTION (THIRD DEPT).
THE HOME-BUILDER’S CONTRACT WAS INVALID BECAUSE IT DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE GENERAL BUSINESS LAW, THE HOMEOWNERS’ BREACH OF CONTRACT COUNTERCLAIM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED ON THAT GROUND HOWEVER; CONTRACTOR ENTITLED TO RECOVER IN QUANTUM MERUIT IF, UPON REMITTAL, IT IS DETERMINED THE CONTRACTOR’S BREACH, IF ANY, WAS NOT SUBSTANTIAL (THIRD DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S NEW COUNSEL FILED A SECOND COMPLAINT ARISING OUT OF THE SAME FACTS AS THE FIRST COMPLAINT TO ALLEGE CERTAIN INTENTIONAL TORTS BEFORE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS RAN OUT, DISMISSAL OF THE SECOND COMPLAINT WAS NOT REQUIRED, CONSOLIDATION OF THE TWO COMPLAINTS WAS ORDERED (THIRD 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

Effects of Refusal to Allow Inmate to Call Witness Explained Question of Fact Re: Implied Easement for Pipeline to Pond