You are here: / Freedom of Information Law (FOIL)
image_pdfPDF Friendly Versionimage_printPrint Friendly Version

RESPONDENT CITY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE FOIL REQUEST WOULD INTERFERE WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT OR JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS OR WOULD REVEAL A CONFIDENTIAL SOURCE; MATTER REMITTED FOR IN CAMERA REVIEW TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE FOIL REQUEST WAS PROTECTED BY THE INTER- OR INTRA- AGENCY MATERIALS EXEMPTION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined that two of the grounds for denying the FOIL request were invalid and the third, the inter-agency or intra-agency materials exemption, could not be assessed absent an in camera review of the documents. The matter was remitted:

Respondent failed to meet its burden of establishing that disclosure of any records responsive to petitioner’s FOIL request would “interfere with law enforcement investigations or judicial proceedings” … . This exemption “ceases to apply after enforcement investigations and any ensuing judicial proceedings have run their course” … . …

Respondent also failed to establish that disclosure would “identify a confidential source or disclose confidential information relating to a criminal investigation” … , “in the absence of any evidence that [any] person received an express or implied promise of confidentiality'” … . Respondent’s assertion that disclosure would reveal nonroutine “criminal investigative techniques or procedures” … is conclusory.

The email messages submitted by petitioner in support of the article 78 petition are covered by the inter-agency or intra-agency materials exemption … because they amount to “opinions, ideas, or advice exchanged as part of the consultative or deliberative process of government decision making”… . However, the applicability of this exemption to any other responsive records cannot be determined on this record in the absence of in camera review … . Matter of Jewish Press, Inc. v New York City Dept. of Investigation, 2021 NY Slip Op 02108, First Dept 4-6-21

 

/0 Comments/by

A WARNING LETTER ISSUED TO THE NYC MAYOR BY THE NYC CONFLICTS OF INTEREST BOARD MUST BE RELEASED PURSUANT TO A FOIL REQUEST BY THE NEW YORK TIMES (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Acosta, determined that a warning letter issued to the NYC mayor by the Conflicts of Interest Board (Board) must be released pursuant to a Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) request:

At issue in this appeal is whether a “private” warning letter issued to the Mayor of the City of New York by the Conflicts of Interest Board (Board) is subject to disclosure pursuant to the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL). The City of New York office of the Mayor (Mayor’s Office) declined to disclose the letter to the New York Times (NYT) on the ground that the letter was exempt pursuant to New York City Charter § 2603(k), which states that “the records, reports, memoranda and files of the board shall be confidential and shall not be subject to public scrutiny.” The Mayor’s Office argues that since the letter was designated as “private” by the Board, and therefore confidential, it falls within the ambit of § 2603(k). We disagree. As the plain text of section 2603(k) indicates, it is meant to protect the confidentiality of documents in possession of the Board. Once the letter was issued to another entity, the Mayor could not rely on section 2603(k), because the NYT sought disclosure from the Mayor and not from the Board … . The Mayor’s Office’s privacy arguments are also inconsistent with the public interest in disclosure of warning letters, contrary to its own past practice of disclosing the Board’s correspondence, and otherwise have no merit. Accordingly, the letter must be disclosed. * * *

DOI [NYC Department of Investigations] found that the Mayor’s Office solicited contributions for CONY [Campaign for One New York] from executives of real estate development firms that likely had or potentially had business pending before the City. Although there was no finding of any quid pro quo, on several occasions, a firm achieved a favorable outcome from a City agency after it had made a donation to CONY … . These findings were transmitted to the Board, whose Chairman declined “for confidentiality reasons,” to tell a reporter whether the Board had issued a private warning letter, the only action available … . …

The NYT reporter to whom the Board chairman had spoken then filed a FOIL request with the Mayor’s Office for “a copy of a letter” sent by the Board to the Mayor’s Office regarding his fundraising for [CONY].” The request was denied on the ground that “the class of records you have requested would be exempt from disclosure pursuant to New York City Charter § 2603(k).” Matter of New York Times Co. v City of New York Off. of the Mayor, 2021 NY Slip Op 01948, First Dept 3-30-21

 

/0 Comments/by

THE PETITION SEEKING EMAILS AND RECIPIENT LISTS IN ELECTRONIC FORM FROM THE VILLAGE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; THE VILLAGE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE REQUEST COULD NOT BE GRANTED WITH REASONABLE EFFORTS; PETITIONER WAS NOT ADVISED OF THE AVAILABILITY OF AN ADMINSTRATIVE APPEAL, THEREFORE THE APPEAL WAS NOT UNTIMELY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the petition seeking emails and the related recipient lists in electronic form should not have been dismissed because the denial of the request did not indicate no one employed by the village had the expertise to provide the information in electronic form. In addition, the appeal of the denial of another similar request should not have been deemed untimely because the petitioner was never advised of the availability of an administrative appeal:

Guazzoni {the Village Trustee] stated that he lacked the technical sophistication to manually transfer the email addresses of each of his individual recipients onto an Excel spreadsheet in order to provide an electronically formatted response to the FOIL request. However, Guazzoni did not address whether any other employee of the Village could, with a reasonable degree of time and effort, create an Excel spreadsheet that would comply with the terms of the FOIL request. It cannot be said, therefore, that the amended petition fails to state a cause of action, as it presents a question of fact as to whether reasonable efforts by Village employees could be undertaken to provide an electronically formatted response … . …

Public Officers Law § 89(3)(a) and (4)(a) requires that FOIL requests be granted or denied by an agency within five business days, and that any administrative appeal of a denial, as required for exhausting administrative remedies, be undertaken within 30 days of the denial. 21 NYCRR 1401.7(c) provides that a FOIL request is deemed denied if there is no response to the request within five business days. However, since there was no advisement to the petitioner of the availability of an administrative appeal as required by 21 NYCRR 1401.7(b), the Supreme Court erred in concluding that the petitioner’s administrative appeal, which was filed on July 13, 2017, was time barred … . Matter of Madden v Village of Tuxedo Park, 2021 NY Slip Op 01415, Second Dept 3-10-21

 

/by

THE ZIP CODES ASSOCIATED WITH THE HOME ADDRESSES OF STATE EMPLOYEES SHOULD NOT BE PROVIDED PURSUANT TO A FOIL REQUEST BECAUSE THE FULL HOME ADDRESSES COULD EASILY BE FOUND ON THE INTERNET BY SEARCHING FOR AN EMPLOYEE’S NAME WITH THE RELATED ZIP CODE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Garry, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the request for the zip codes association with the residences of state employees should not have been granted on invasion-of-privacy grounds. The court noted that the employees’ full addresses could easily be determined by using the Internet to search for the person by name along with the related zip code:

As to special protections for state employee records, the Legislature’s enactment of Public Officers Law § 89 (7) indicates its desire to protect public employees from harassment at home. That statute provides that “[n]othing in [FOIL] shall require the disclosure of the home address of an officer or employee” of the state … . Moreover, by executive order the Governor has prohibited state agencies from disclosing state employees’ home addresses except when “compelled . . . by lawful service of process, subpoena, court order, or as otherwise required by law” … . These policy goals are relevant to the interests in protecting the personal privacy of government employees.

The scenario of numerous — or perhaps most — state employees being contacted at home by a private individual or organization that knows who they are, where they live and what they do for a living seems likely to be offensive and objectionable to most reasonable people … . Thus, release of home zip codes would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy under these circumstances. Accordingly, as respondent met its burden of proving that the requested zip codes are exempt from disclosure under FOIL, Supreme Court erred in ordering the disclosure of such data. Matter of Suhr v New York State Dept. of Civ. Serv., 2021 NY Slip Op 01113, Third Dept 2-18-21

 

/by
,

PETITIONER WAS ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES AS THE PREVAILING PARTY BECAUSE THE POLICE DEPARTMENT TURNED OVER THE REQUESTED BODY CAM VIDEOS VOLUNTARILY WHILE THE PROCEEDING WAS PENDING; THE RESPONDENTS HAD NO REASONABLE BASIS FOR DENYING THE REQUEST (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined petitioner was entitled to attorney’s fees in this FOIL action which sought police body cam videos for an incident involving deadly force. Petitioner was the prevailing party because the respondents voluntarily provided the videos while the proceeding was pending:

… [P]etitioner substantially prevailed when respondents, during the pendency of this proceeding, disclosed the records sought in the FOIL request … . “[T]he voluntariness of . . . disclosure is irrelevant to the issue of whether petitioner substantially prevailed” … . …

… [R]espondents had no reasonable basis for denying access to the records sought. To invoke the FOIL exemption applicable to records that ‘are compiled for law enforcement purposes and which, if disclosed, would . . . interfere with law enforcement investigations’ … , an ‘agency must identify the generic kinds of documents for which the exemption is claimed, and the generic risks posed by disclosure of these categories of documents’ … . ‘Put slightly differently, the agency must still fulfill its burden under Public Officers Law § 89(4)(b) to articulate a factual basis for the exemption’ … . In response to the FOIL request, NYPD did identify the generic kinds of documents at issue; it is undisputed that the responsive records, which have now been disclosed, were videos recorded by body cameras worn by NYPD officers during an incident in which NYPD used deadly force. However, NYPD’s assertions in response to the FOIL request that disclosure would interfere with an ongoing internal investigation into the incident, which was being conducted by the Force Investigation Division at the time, was conclusory in the absence of any factual showing as to how disclosure would have interfered with that investigation.” Matter of Dioso Faustino Freedom of Info. Law Request v New York City, 2021 NY Slip Op 00907, First Dept 2-11-21

 

/by

NYC FIRE DEPARTMENT DOCUMENTS COULD HAVE BEEN REDACTED TO PROTECT PRIVACY AND WERE NOT INTER-AGENCY MATERIALS; THEREFORE THE FOIL REQUESTS FOR THESE DOCUMENTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined certain FOIL requests for NYC Fire Department (FDNY) should have been granted:

… [T]he FDNY withheld the records identified in the petitioner’s FOIL request numbers 4, 9, and 16, which sought records concerning requests for religious accommodations and the determinations made thereon, and accommodations from the FDNY dress requirements. The FDNY withheld those records on the grounds that releasing them would be an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy under Public Officers Law § 87(2)(b) and the records were inter-agency materials exempt by Public Officers Law § 87(2)(g). * * *

… [T]he FDNY failed to sustain its burden of proving that the personal privacy exemption applied to the records sought, since it failed to establish that the identifying details could not be redacted so as to not constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy … . Its conclusory assertions that the records fall within the exemption were insufficient to meet its burden of proving that the statutory exemption applies … . The FDNY should have produced the requested records, redacting whatever portions are necessary to safeguard the identities of the individuals who sought the accommodation, and leaving nonidentifying information intact … .

The FDNY also failed to establish that the exemption for inter-agency materials applied, since the agency determinations sought were final on the accommodation requests and therefore not subject to the exemption … . Matter of Aron Law, PLLC v New York City Fire Dept., 2021 NY Slip Op 00556, Second Dept 2-3-21

 

/by
, ,

THE PRIOR APPELLATE DECISION DIRECTING THE COLLECTION OF MORE EVIDENCE IS THE LAW OF THE CASE; THE DIRECTION WAS NOT COMPLIED WITH BY SUPREME COURT UPON REMITTAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the decision in the prior appeal was the law of the case and Supreme Court did not follow the instruction to collect additional evidence:

In our prior decision and order, we noted that the issue of the burden that would be imposed upon the DOE [Department of Education] to comply with the petitioner’s FOIL request and whether the DOE is able to engage an outside professional service to cull the records sought was not addressed by the Supreme Court and could not be resolved on the record before us … . We noted that “[a]mong other things, it is unclear as to how much time would be involved for an employee at each school to review the relevant files. Further, although the petitioner has expressed its willingness to reimburse the [DOE] for reasonable costs involved in having the [DOE’s] employees, or an appropriate third party, review and copy the [DOE’s] records, there is no information in the record as to what that cost would be or whether the petitioner would in fact be willing to reimburse the [DOE] for the full amount of those costs, once those costs are determined” … . Accordingly, we remitted the matter to the Supreme Court for further proceedings, including additional submissions by the parties … .

Our prior decision and order was law of the case and binding on the Supreme Court … . However, the court failed to conduct further proceedings, including the taking of additional submissions on the issues of burden, cost and reimbursement, in accordance with our decision and order. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment and remit the matter for further proceedings in accordance with our decision and order in Matter of Jewish Press, Inc. v New York City Dept. of Educ. (183 AD3d 731). Matter of Jewish Press, Inc. v New York City Dept. of Educ., 2021 NY Slip Op 00173, Second Dept 1-13-21

 

/by

FOIL REQUEST FOR TRAFFIC VIOLATIONS BUREAU (TVB) RECORDS RELEVANT TO A TRAFFIC ACCIDENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined petitioner’s FOIL request for the records relevant to a traffic accident from the Traffic Violations Bureau (TVB) should have been granted:

The only FOIL exemption at issue in this case applies to records that “are compiled for law enforcement purposes and which, if disclosed, would . . . interfere with . . . judicial proceedings” (Public Officers Law § 87[2][e][i]).

… [W]e find that Traffic Violations Bureau (TVB) hearings are “judicial proceedings” … . The TVB of the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles, an administrative agency that was legislatively created to adjudicate traffic violation charges for the purpose of reducing caseloads of courts in New York City … . At a TVB hearing, the accused motorist has a right to be represented by counsel … and the administrative law judge presiding over the hearing must determine whether the police officer has established the charges by clear and convincing evidence … . Although the CPL and the CPLR are generally “not binding on” TVB … , it has been held that the motorist “is entitled to the issuance of a properly worded judicial subpoena duces tecum under CPLR 2307 requiring the production of relevant records” … .

… NYPD asserts that any release of documents would somehow tip the hand of the TVB’s prosecuting attorney or prevent the prosecutor from testing the recollection of witnesses. Yet, NYPD concedes that these documents would be released to the motorist who would not be under any legal admonition not to release the documents to others. Matter of Jewish Press, Inc. v New York City Police Dept., 2021 NY Slip Op 00119, First Dept 1-12-21

 

/by
, , ,

ONE PURPOSE FOR ASSESSING ATTORNEY’S FEES AGAINST THE AGENCY IN A FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW CASE IS TO DISCOURAGE DELAYS IN RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR DOCUMENTS; THEREFORE, EVEN THOUGH THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (DEP) TURNED OVER THE DOCUMENTS BEFORE THE APPEAL, THE DEP STILL SHOULD PAY THE ATTORNEY’S FEES RELATED TO THE APPEAL (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the request for attorney’s fees for the appeal in this Freedom of Information Law action should not have been denied. Supreme Court reasoned that the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) had turned over the requested documents before the appeal:

Supreme Court suggested that it would be “unduly punitive” to include appellate counsel fees and costs in its award given that DEC had already disclosed all responsive, nonprivileged documents to petitioners. The goal of an award of counsel fees and costs under Public Officers Law § 89 (4) (c), however, is to deter “unreasonable delays and denials of access and thereby encourage every unit of government to make a good faith effort to comply with the requirements of FOIL” … . As we detailed in our prior decision (169 AD3d at 1311-1312), DEC failed to respond to petitioners’ FOIL administrative appeal in a timely manner and disclosed responsive documents after petitioners advanced a FOIL claim in this action/proceeding, and DEC then resisted petitioners’ efforts to recover counsel fees and costs incurred as a result of its dilatory conduct. In our view, those facts demonstrate that the portion of the prior appeal relating to petitioners’ FOIL claim stemmed from “the very kinds of unreasonable delays and denials of access which the counsel fee provision seeks to deter,” and Supreme Court accordingly abused its discretion in declining to include the counsel fees and costs connected thereto in its award … . Matter of 101CO, LLC v New York State Dept. of Envtl. Conservation, 2020 NY Slip Op 07969, Third Dept 12-24-20

 

/by
, ,

SUPREME COURT WENT BEYOND THE PERMISSIBLE REVIEW OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION’S DETERMINATION UNION CARBIDE’S FOIL REQUESTS WERE MOOT BECAUSE THE REQUESTED DOCUMENTS HAD BEEN PROVIDED; ONCE SUPREME COURT FOUND THAT THE FOIL REQUEST WAS NOT MOOT BECAUSE THERE WERE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS, IT SHOULD NOT HAVE GONE ON TO CONSIDER WHETHER THE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS WERE EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court and remitting the matter to the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEP), determined Supreme Court exceeded its review powers with respect to DEP’s response to petitioner’s (Union Carbide’s) FOIL requests. Union Carbide sought documents relating to a study which determined the radioactive slag found at sites owned by Union Carbide was not the same as the radioactive slag produced by Union Carbide’s predecessor. The DEP had determined the FOIL requests were moot because the requested documents had been produced. Supreme Court properly held that the requests were not moot, but then improperly went on to consider whether the additional requested documents were protected from disclosure:

… [T]he administrative determination was that the first two FOIL requests were closed and that the administrative appeal with respect to the third FOIL request was moot given the production of responsive records prior to and following the filing of the appeal. As such, Supreme Court’s review was limited to whether the appeal was moot on the basis offered by the FOIL Appeals Officer, that being, whether all responsive records had been provided. By virtue of respondent’s in camera submission of additional documents to the court, it was evident that all responsive records had not been provided, and the administrative determination should have been annulled. However, in reviewing the subject documents and finding that those documents, with the exception of the site classification report, were statutorily exempted from disclosure, Supreme Court went beyond its mandate to “judge the propriety of [the agency’s] action solely by the grounds invoked by the agency” … . Accordingly, there was no basis for the court to determine that any exemption justified the withholding or redacting of the additional documents submitted to the court … . Inasmuch as the record demonstrates that additional documents responsive to petitioners’ FOIL requests exist and were not yet produced or examined by respondent’s FOIL Appeals Officer, we remit to Supreme Court to direct respondent to respond to petitioners’ FOIL requests by reviewing the additional subject documents and to determine in the first instance whether they are statutorily exempted from disclosure under the Public Officers Law. Matter of Union Carbide Corp. v New York State Dept. of Envtl. Conservation, 2020 NY Slip Op 07445, Second Dept 12-10-20

 

/by

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

Copyright © 2021 New York Appellate Digest, LLC
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy