You are here: / / Petitioner Entitled to Attorney’s Fees Based on Respondent’s Failure to ...

Petitioner Entitled to Attorney’s Fees Based on Respondent’s Failure to Timely Respond to Requests for Information

The Third Department determined petitioner should be granted attorney’s fees because of respondent’s ignoring a FOIL request until an Article 78 proceeding was brought.  Even though respondent indicated the requested documents didn’t exist, the Third Department ruled that petitioner had “prevailed” in the FOIL proceedings and was therefore entitled to attorney’s fees:

By commencing this proceeding to force respondent to respond to its request, after a tortuous history, petitioner finally “received all the information that it requested and to which it was entitled in response to the underlying FOIL litigation, [and thus] it may  be said to have substantially prevailed within the meaning of Public Officers Law § 89 (4) ©” … .

The fact that full compliance with the statute was finally achieved in the form of a certification that the requested record could not be found after a diligent search, as opposed to the production of responsive documents, does not preclude a  petitioner from being  found  to have substantially prevailed, for the petitioner received the full and only response available pursuant to the statute under the circumstances. As we have emphasized, the counsel fee provision was added in recognition that persons seeking to force an agency to respond to a proper FOIL request “must engage in costly litigation,” and the statute was recently amended “in order to ‘create a clear deterrent to unreasonable delays and denials of access [and thereby] encourage every unit of government to make a good faith effort to comply with the requirements of FOIL’”… . Matter of Legal Aid Society v NYS Department of Corrections …, 515257, 3rd Dept 4-4-13

 

You might also like
Substantial Evidence Supported Finding Claimant Was an Employee, Not an Independent Contractor
PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ALTERING OR ERECTING A STRUCTURE WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 240 (1), DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNER DID NOT EXERCISE SUPERVISORY CONTROL OVER THE METHOD OR MANNER OF PLAINTIFF’S WORK, PLAINTIFF’S LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 200 CAUSES OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE INSURER COULD DISCLAIM COVERAGE FOR ANY INJURIES CAUSED BY THE INSURED ASSAILANT’S INTENTIONAL CRIMINAL ACTS UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL, THE INSURER COULD NOT DISCLAIM COVERAGE FOR ANY SUBSEQUENT INJURIES THAT MAY HAVE BEEN CAUSED BY THE ASSAILANT’S NEGLIGENCE (THIRD DEPT).
Motion to Renew Based Upon New Evidence Should Have Been Granted/Request to Depose Knowledgeable Witnesses In Addition to the Witnesses Initially Provided by the Municipality Should Have Been Granted
NO PROOF INMATE WAS PROPERLY INFORMED OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF HIS NOT ATTENDING THE HEARING AT THE TIME OF HIS PURPORTED REFUSAL TO ATTEND, DETERMINATION ANNULLED.
ONCE A STIPULATION OF DISCONTINUANCE WAS FILED SUPREME COURT LACKED ANY SUPERVISORY CONTROL OVER THE PROCEEDING AND THE MOTION PRACTICE SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE SETTLEMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED ON THAT GROUND; A PLENARY ACTION WAS REQUIRED (THIRD DEPT). ​
THE NEW YORK EARLY MAIL VOTER ACT, EFFECTIVE JANAURY 1, 2024, IS CONSTITUTIONAL (THIRD DEPT).
NEITHER THE SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION TO WHICH DEFENDANT PLED GUILTY NOR THE PLEA ALLOCUTION INDICATED THE TWO SEXUAL OFFENSES OCCURRED AT DIFFERENT TIMES, CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES WERE NOT AUTHORIZED 3RD 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

Disciplinary Actions by SUNY School Did Not Violate Student’s Due Process... Procedure for Testing Adequacy of Causes of Action in Article 78 Petition; Criteria...