You are here: / / PETITIONER’S FOIL REQUEST FOR A POLICE MANUAL WAS AT FIRST DENIED,...
,

PETITIONER’S FOIL REQUEST FOR A POLICE MANUAL WAS AT FIRST DENIED, BUT WAS GRANTED AFTER THE ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING WAS BROUGHT; RESPONDENT DID NOT HAVE A GOOD REASON FOR FIRST DENYING THE REQUEST; PETITIONER “SUBSTANTIALLY PREVAILED” AND WAS ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined petitioner in this FOIL proceeding “substantially prevailed” and was therefore entitled to attorney’s fees:

Upon petitioner’s FOIL request seeking the contents of a medical screening manual used by the New York City Police Department, respondents, relying on Public Officers Law § 87(2)(d) among other sections of the statute, produced only the manual’s cover, title page, and table of contents, maintaining that they lacked the necessary permission from the manual’s developer to release the rest of the manual. After petitioner commenced this article 78 proceeding, however, respondents produced the rest of the manual in unredacted form, except for the appendices, with their response to the petition. Under these circumstances, petitioner substantially prevailed within the meaning of Public Officers Law § 89(4)(c) … .

… [R]espondents have not established that they had a “reasonable basis” for withholding production under Public Officers Law § 87(2)(d). Respondents concede that they sought permission from the manual’s developer to release the information only after receiving the article 78 petition, suggesting that the disclosure was prompted solely by petitioner’s resort to litigation and that respondents could have sought permission in response to the FOIL request itself. This fact militates against a finding that the agency had a “reasonable basis” for withholding production … . Matter of Jaskaran v City of New York, 2021 NY Slip Op 06762, First Dept 12-2-21

 

You might also like
COMPLAINT ALLEGING THE NEW YORK CITY PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM DISCRIMINATES AGAINST STUDENTS OF COLOR AND SEEKING INJUNCTIVE RELIEF SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).
RECENT CHANGES TO THE STATUTES: (1) REQUIRING A LANDLORD TO MITIGATE DAMAGES WHEN A TENANT ABANDONS A RESIDENTIAL APARTMENT BEFORE THE END OF THE LEASE; AND (2), APPLYNG A SECURITY DEPOSIT TO REPAIRS, INTERPRETED AND APPLIED (FIRST DEPT).
MIRANDA WARNINGS AND 710.30 NOTICE NOT REQUIRED; DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT HE RESIDED AT THE APARTMENT WHERE CONTRABAND WAS FOUND WAS IN RESPONSE TO PEDIGREE QUESTIONS.
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND HER COMPLAINT TO ADD NAMES OF POLICE OFFICERS SUED AS JOHN DOES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE OFFICERS ARE NOT UNITED IN INTEREST WITH THE CITY DEFENDANT, FAILURE TO NAME THE OFFICERS WAS NOT A MISTAKE, AND PLAINTIFF FAILED TO MAKE A DILIGENT EFFORT TO LEARN THE OFFICERS’ NAMES BEFORE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS EXPIRED (FIRST DEPT).
A LEASE BETWEEN PLAINTIFF CORPORATION AND DEFENDANTS (ONE OF WHOM WAS A MEMBER OF PLAINTIFF’S BOARD) WAS NOT VOTED ON BY A MAJORITY OF DISINTERESTED DIRECTORS AND WAS THEREFORE VOIDABLE UNDER BUSINESS CORPORATION LAW 713(B); DEFENDANTS BREACHED THEIR FIDUCIARAY DUTY TO THE CORPORATION BY SUBLETTING THE LEASED PREMISES FOR A MUCH HIGHER RENT WITHOUT PLAINTIFF’S KNOWLEDGE (FIRST DEPT).
Defense Counsel, Not Defendant, Has the Ultimate Authority to Determine Whether Defendant Should Testify Before the Grand Jury
THE INSURER’S NEARLY TWO-MONTH DELAY BEFORE DISCLAIMING COVERAGE RENDERED THE DISCLAIMER UNTIMELY AS A MATTER OF LAW (FIRST DEPT).
THE REPEAL OF THE EMERGENCY OR DISASTER TREATMENT PROTECTION ACT (EDTPA) WAS NOT RETROACTIVE; THEREFORE DEFENDANT’S NURSING HOME WAS IMMUNE FROM SUIT STEMMING FROM PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S DEATH FROM COVID-19 (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 INSURED, SPACE NEEDLE, LLC, IS LOCATED IN WASHINGTON STATE; ALTHOUGH THE... PLAINTIFF IN A LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241 (6) ACTION NEED NOT SUBMIT AN AFFIDAVIT...