You are here: / / THE PURPOSE OF PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR CONTACT INFORMATION ABOUT...

THE PURPOSE OF PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR CONTACT INFORMATION ABOUT EACH COUNTY EMPLOYEE WAS TO CONVINCE THE EMPLOYEES TO OPT OUT OF JOINING A UNION; NO GOVERNMENTAL PURPOSE WOULD BE SERVED BY PUBLIC DISCLOSURE OF THE INFORMATION; THE FOIL PRIVACY EXEMPTION APPLIES (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the privacy provisions in the Public Officers Law shielded the county from the petitioner’s request for information about each employee. “With respect to each employee, petitioner sought the employee’s first name, middle name, last name, gender, public office address, job title, hire date, agency or department, work email address “or naming convention and domain,” work telephone number, and bargaining unit. In addition, petitioner sought “to receive the responsive information electronically in machine-readable format.” The Fourth Department found that the request was made to facilitate petitioner’s campaign to prevent county employees from joining a union:

It is evident here that petitioner’s intent, which “drives [our] analysis” … , in requesting the employees’ names, contact information, and union status, is to contact union members to urge them to opt out of union membership. Indeed, petitioner states in its brief on appeal that it “contacts public employees for the purposes of its educational mission through . . . a project” that it calls ” ‘Opt-Out Today.’ ” There is no indication that petitioner “intends to use the names to, for example, expose governmental abuses or evaluate governmental activities” … . Nor, as petitioner asserts, does the “natural and obvious meaning” we assign to the term “solicitation” conflict “with the legislative intent and . . . general purpose and manifest policy underlying FOIL” … . “If anything, it is precisely because no governmental purpose is served by public disclosure of this information that section 87 (2) (b)’s privacy exemption falls squarely within FOIL’s statutory scheme” … . Matter of Freedom Found. v Jefferson County, 2024 NY Slip Op 03944, Fourth Dept 7-26-24

Practice Point: Here the disclosure of contact information for county employees did not serve a governmental purpose and was prohibited by FOIL’s privacy exemption.

 

You might also like
AIR FRESHENERS HANGING FROM REAR-VIEW MIRROR PROVIDED PROBABLE CAUSE JUSTIFYING VEHICLE STOP.
Resident Who Assisted Supervising Physician But Who Exercised No Independent Medical Judgment Entitled to Summary Judgment
An Issue Raised for the First Time on Appeal Will Not Be Considered Where the Defect Could Have Been Cured If Raised Below/Trial Court Can Grant Summary Judgment Based on an Unpleaded Defense
FAMILY COURT DID NOT FOLLOW THE PROCEDURE SET OUT IN THE UNIFORM CHILD CUSTODY JURISDICTION AND ENFORCEMENT ACT (UCCJEA) BEFORE DETERMINING IT DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER FATHER’S CUSTODY PROCEEDING, MOTHER HAD BROUGHT A CUSTODY PROCEEDING IN PENNSYLVANIA, MATTER REMITTED (FOURTH DEPT).
DISCOVERY REQUESTS AIMED AT AN ISSUE WHICH WAS ADMITTED BY DEFENDANTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; BECAUSE THE ALTERNATIVE ARGUMENT FOR THE DISCOVERY REQUESTS WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY A MEMO IN THE RECORD DEMONSTRATING THE ISSUE WAS PRESERVED, THE ARGUMENT WAS REJECTED (FOURTH DEPT).
SENTENCE DEEMED UNDULY HARSH (FOURTH DEPT).
IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE/PUBLIC HEALTH LAW ACTION AGAINST A NURSING HOME, DEFENDANTS’ EXPERTS’ OPINIONS WERE NOT SUPPORTED BY THE SUBMISSION OF DECEDENT’S MEDICAL RECORDS, RENDERING THE OPINIONS SPECULATIVE; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).
CLASS ACTION CERTIFICATION FOR EMPLOYEES ALLEGING DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO PAY THE PREVAILING WAGE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED (FOURTH 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

DEFENDANT WAS ACQUITTED OF MENACING AT THE FIRST TRIAL BUT THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTING... THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR APPOINTED TO HANDLE DEFENDANT’S CASE DID NOT MEET...