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
THE COLLAPSE OF A NEIGHBORING STRUCTURE WAS FORESEEABLE; PLAINTIFF, WHO WAS STRUCK BY A PIECE OF CONCRETE FROM THE STRUCTURE, WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT).
RARE CASE WHERE PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION ON LABOR LAW 200 AND COMMON-LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION WAS APPROPRIATELY GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT DID NOT ADMIT HE INTENDED TO COMMIT A CRIME IN THE BUILDING HE ENTERED AND REMAINED UNLAWFULLY; THEREFORE THE PLEA ALLOCUTION DID NOT ESTABLISH THE ELEMENTS OF ATTEMPTED BURGLARY; DEFENDANT’S VIOLATION OF A STAY-AWAY ORDER IS NOT ENOUGH; PLEA VACATED (FIRST DEPT).
THE EVIDENCE OF “SERIOUS DISFIGUREMENT” WAS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT; ASSAULT FIRST REDUCED TO ASSAULT SECOND; THE ISSUE WAS NOT PRESERVED (NO TRIAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL MOTION?) BUT WAS CONSIDERED ON APPEAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT ALLEGED DEFENSE COUNSEL OVERSTATED THE RISK OF DEPORTATION CAUSING HIM TO REJECT A FAVORABLE PLEA OFFER; DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION BASED UPON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGEDLY INCONSISTENT ACCOUNTS OF THE CAUSE OF HIS FALL CREATED A QUESTION OF FACT.
FAILURE TO INCLUDE CITY, STATE AND/OR ZIP CODES OF THE CANDIDATES’ RESIDENCES DID NOT INVALIDATE THE DESIGNATING PETITIONS (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS OF DISCRIMINATORY NON-PROMOTION AND TERMINATION PURSUANT TO THE NYC AND NYS HUMAN RIGHTS LAW WERE SUFFICIENT AT THE PLEADING STAGE AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (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...