You are here: / / THE PETITIONER MAKING THE FOIL REQUEST IS A LAW FIRM; THE FACT THAT THE...
, ,

THE PETITIONER MAKING THE FOIL REQUEST IS A LAW FIRM; THE FACT THAT THE FIRM’S CLIENT ALSO HAD STANDING TO MAKE THE FOIL REQUEST DID NOT DEPRIVE THE LAW FIRM OF STANDING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the Article 78 proceeding contesting the denial of petitioner’s FOIL request should not have been dismissed for lack of standing. Petitioner is a law firm seeking information on behalf of a client. The fact that the client could also make the FOIL request did not deprive the law firm of standing:

Supreme Court erred in concluding that the petitioner lacked standing to pursue this proceeding. The petitioner submitted the FOIL request to the Agency and its request was denied, both initially and on administrative appeal. Since the petitioner’s FOIL request was denied, it had standing to seek judicial review of the Agency’s determination … , regardless of whether it submitted the FOIL request, in whole or in part, on behalf of a client … . The petitioner’s standing was not extinguished by the fact that its client also would have had standing to commence a proceeding challenging the denial of the FOIL request … . Matter of Law Offs. of Cory H. Morris v Suffolk County, 2023 NY Slip Op 06046, Second Dept 11-22-23

Practice Point: Here a law firm made FOIL requests that were denied. The law firm then brought an Article 78 proceeding which was erroneously dismissed for lack of standing. The fact that the firm’s client had standing to bring the FOIL proceedings did not deprive the law firm of standing.

 

You might also like
​ THE PLAINTIFFS IN THIS SUIT AMONG BROTHERS ABOUT THE FATHER’S ESTATE DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ACT ON BEHALF OF THE ESTATE OR TO SUE AS BENEFICIARIES OF THE ESTATE; THE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
HEARSAY STATEMENTS BY THE ONLY WITNESS TO IDENTIFY DEFENDANT AS A PERPETRATOR INDICATED THE WITNESS WAS NOT IN FACT ABLE TO IDENTIFY ANY OF THE PERPETRATORS; THE INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN ADMITTED BECAUSE THEY WENT TO A CORE ISSUE IN THE CASE IMPLICATING THE RIGHT TO PUT ON A DEFENSE; CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
In Order for a Municipality to Be Liable for the Creation of a Dangerous Condition, the Dangerous Condition Must Result Immediately from the Negligent Act—Here the Allegation the Dangerous Condition Developed Over a Period of Years Was Not Sufficient
IN THIS PARKING LOT SLIP AND FALL CASE, THE DEFENDANTS FAILED TO PROVE WHEN THE AREA WAS LAST INSPECTED OR CLEANED OF ICE AND SNOW; THEREFORE DEFENDANTS DID NOT PROVE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE ICY CONDTION AND SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AWARDED (SECOND DEPT).
Whether Lost Evidence Was Relevant to Plaintiff’s Case Presented a Jury Question—Only If the Jury Determines the Evidence Was Relevant Can the Jury Consider the Adverse Inference Charge for Spoliation of Evidence
NEGLECT FINDING AGAINST MOTHER AND FATHER BASED UPON THE CHILD’S BRUISES NOT SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT).
THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE ISSUED A PROTECTIVE ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFFS’ COUNSEL TO INFORM DEFENDANTS’ FORMER EMPLOYEES THAT COUNSEL’S INTERESTS ARE ADVERSE TO THEIRS AND TO RECOMMEND THE FORMER EMPLOYEES RETAIN COUNSEL BEFORE ANY DISCUSSION WITH PLAINTIFFS’ COUNSEL (SECOND DEPT).
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). ​

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

FATHER IGNORED COMPULSORY DISCOVERY OF HIS FINANCIAL ABILITY TO PAY SUPPORT;... UNSUBSTANTIATED COMPLAINTS AGAINST POLICE OFFICERS ARE NOT CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT...