You are here: / / FOIL REQUESTS FOR DOCUMENTS POSSESSED BY ANOTHER AGENCY AND FOIL REQUESTS...

FOIL REQUESTS FOR DOCUMENTS POSSESSED BY ANOTHER AGENCY AND FOIL REQUESTS WHICH REQUIRED THE CREATION OF A NEW DOCUMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined FOIL requests for documents in the possession of another agency and FOIL requests which require the creation of a new document should not have been granted:

The court improperly ordered DCAS [Department of Citywide Administrative Services] to produce information possessed by another agency, the Financial Information Systems Agency (FISA). FOIL does not require an agency “to prepare any record not possessed or maintained by” that agency (Public Officers Law § 89[3][a]). DCAS’s witness gave unrebutted testimony that several of the eight categories of requested information are maintained in a separate database by FISA, not DCAS. Accordingly, DCAS is “under no obligation to provide” that information … .

The court also improperly required DCAS to undergo a process that would constitute the creation of a new record … . DCAS’s witness provided testimony that compliance with the request would require a multi-step process involving writing requirements for searches and for extracting data from three databases, reviewing the data for accuracy and completeness, developing code to “convert” the raw “transactional” data into “time series” or “status” data, and then aggregating and otherwise cleaning up the information into a report. Her testimony was consistent with her affidavit describing the process and estimating that, while the discrete step of extracting the raw data from DCAS’s database would take only four hours, “the staff time required for the production of the requested reports” as a whole “is not less than 150 to 158 hours.”

This Court has held that a similar “transformation process” necessary to compile an analogous list of City employee information “would entail much more than a ‘simple manipulation of the computer . . . to transfer existing records'” and would therefore constitute the creation of a new record … . “[T]here is no fair interpretation of the [testimony] that can support” the court’s findings that the total process would take only four hours or that this case is distinguishable from our previous holding … . Matter of FDNY Local 2507, DC-37, AFSCME v City of New York, 2025 NY Slip Op 01867, First Dept 3-27-25

Practice Point: A FOIL request for a document which is in the possession of another agency need not be granted.

Practice Point: A FOIL request which requires an agency to create a new document is improper.

 

You might also like
JANITOR CAN NOT SUE FOR A SLIP AND FALL CAUSED BY THE CONDITION HE WAS TO REMEDY AS PART OF HIS JOB.
Chronic Nonpayment Not Subject to 15-Day Cure Period; Chronic Nonpayment is Treated Differently from Occasional Nonpayment
Neglect Finding Based On Single Incident Reversed.
VENTILATOR FROM WHICH PLAINTIFF FELL WAS NOT A SAFETY DEVICE, HOWEVER THE FACT THAT PLAINTIFF COULD NOT REACH THE VENTILATOR FROM THE LADDER ENTITLED HIM TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION, A VIOLATION OF LABOR LAW 240 (1) IS NOT A FINDING OF NEGLIGENCE, LANDLORD ENTITLED TO INDEMNIFICATION UNDER THE LEASE TERMS (FIRST DEPT).
IN A TRESPASS INVESTIGATION, DETAINING DEFENDANT AND RETAINING HIS ID TO CHECK WHETHER HAD, AS HE CLAIMED, VISITED HIS GIRLFRIEND AT A SPECIFIED APARTMENT IN THE COMPLEX WAS NOT A SEIZURE.
THE FORECLOSURE ABUSE PREVENTION ACT (FAPA) APPLIES RETROACTIVELY; THE DEFENDANT MORTGAGE COMPANY IS ESTOPPED BY CPLR 213(4)(A) FROM ASSERTING THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR A FORECLOSURE HAS NOT EXPIRED; PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT SEEKING DISCHARGE AND CANCELLATION OF THE MORTGAGE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT, IN THE PLEA COLLOQUY, SAID SHE ACTED IN SELF DEFENSE; AT THAT POINT THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE MADE SURE SHE WAS AWARE SHE WAS WAIVING THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE (FIRST DEPT).
Plaintiff Entitled to Summary Judgment Re: Fall from Non-Defective Ladder After Co-Worker Who Had Been Stabilizing the Ladder Was Called Away—Defendants Did Not Demonstrate Plaintiff Was Adequately Protected—Comparative Negligence Is Not Relevant

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

PROOF THAT THE WEAPON WAS LOADED WHEN IT WAS FOUND THE DAY AFTER DEFENDANT POSSESSED... FAMILY COURT LOST SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION AFTER THE NEGLECT PETITION WAS...