You are here: / Freedom of Information Law (FOIL)

THE FOIL REQUEST FOR THE DISCIPLINARY RECORDS OF POLICE OFFICERS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CATEGORICALLY DENIED PURSUANT TO THE PERSONAL PRIVACY EXEMPTION; RATHER THE RECORDS MUST BE REVIEWED AND ANY DENIALS OR REDACTIONS EXPLAINED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the request for the disciplinary records of police officers should not have categorically denied pursuant to the personal privacy exemption. The decision encompasses several important issues not summarized here and therefore should be consulted:

… [T]he personal privacy exemption “does not . . . categorically exempt . . . documents from disclosure”, even in the case where a FOIL request concerns release of unsubstantiated allegations or complaints of professional misconduct. In order to invoke the personal privacy exemption here, respondents must review each record responsive to petitioner’s FOIL request and determine whether any portion of the specific record is exempt as an invasion of personal privacy and, to the extent that any portion of a law enforcement disciplinary record concerning an open or unsubstantiated complaint of SPD [Syracuse Police Department] officer misconduct can be disclosed without resulting in an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, respondents must release the non-exempt, i.e., properly redacted, portion of the record to petitioner … .

Inasmuch as respondents withheld the requested law enforcement disciplinary records concerning open and unsubstantiated claims of SPD officer misconduct in their entirety and did not articulate any particularized and specific justification for withholding any of the records, we conclude that respondents did not meet their burden of establishing that the personal privacy exemption applies … . Respondents further failed to establish that “identifying details” in the law enforcement disciplinary records concerning open and unsubstantiated claims of SPD officer misconduct “could not be redacted so as to not constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy” … . Thus, the court erred in granting that part of respondents’ motion seeking to dismiss petitioner’s request for law enforcement disciplinary records concerning open or unsubstantiated claims of SPD officer misconduct in reliance on the personal privacy exemption under Public Officers Law § 87 (2) (b).  Matter of New York Civ. Liberties Union v City of Syracuse, 2022 NY Slip Op 06348, Fourth Dept 11-10-22

Similar issues in: Matter of New York Civ. Liberties Union v City of Rochester, 2022 NY Slip Op 06346, Fourth Dept 11-10-22

Practice Point: A FOIL request for the disciplinary records of police officers cannot be categorically rejected pursuant to the personal privacy exemption. Rather the records must be reviewed and any denials an redactions explained.

 

/0 Comments/by
,

HERE, IN THIS FOIL PROCEEDING, THE REQUESTED DOCUMENTS WERE ULTIMATELY PROVIDED AFTER AN INITIAL REFUSAL RENDERING THE ACTION MOOT; THE PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEY’S FEES, HOWEVER, WAS NOT PRECLUDED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the award of attorney’s fees for a FOIL request is not precluded when the underlying action is rendered moot because the requested documents were ultimately provided (after an initial refusal):

The fact that the proceeding has been rendered moot by the disclosure of the documents does not … preclude petitioner’s request for an award of fees … .The Public Officers Law permits an award of “reasonable [counsel] fees and other litigation costs” where the petitioner “has substantially prevailed” in a FOIL proceeding and “when the agency failed to respond to a request . . . within the statutory time frame” … . Under the circumstances, as petitioner included in his petition a request for fees associated with the FOIL application, the matter must be remitted to Supreme Court for a determination of an award of costs and fees pursuant to Public Officers Law § 89 (4) (c) (i). Matter of Lewis v James, 2022 NY Slip Op 04066, Third Dept 6-23-22

Practice Point: If a FOIL request, after an initial refusal to provide the requested documents, is rendered moot by the respondent’s ultimately providing the documents, an award of attorney’s fees to the petitioner is not precluded.

 

/by
,

PETITIONER WAS ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES IN THIS FOIL PROCEEDING; THE RESPONDENTS DID NOT PROVIDE THE BULK OF THE REQUESTED DOCUMENTS UNTIL AFTER THE ARTICLE 78 WAS BROUGHT; RESPONDENTS DID NOT PRESENT AN ADEQUATE EXCUSE FOR FAILING TO INITIALLY DISCLOSE THE REQUESTED DOCUMENTS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined petitioner was entitled to attorney’s fees as the prevailing party in this FOIL proceeding. It was only after petitioner brought an Article 78 petition that the respondents provided the bulk of the requested documents:

… [T]he respondents did not timely respond to the petitioner’s FOIL request … . The first response, which consisted of four pages of materials, failed to address three of the four enumerated categories of material the petitioner sought. It was not until after the commencement of this proceeding that the respondents provided a significant number of additional documents responsive to the FOIL request. Under the circumstances of this case, the petitioner was the “substantially prevailing” party … . …

… [T]he respondents did not have a reasonable basis for initially denying the petitioner access to the responsive materials. Although a limited amount of material was reasonably withheld based on attorney-client privilege, the “petitioner’s legal action ultimately succeeded in obtaining substantial unredacted post-commencement disclosure responsive to h[is] FOIL request” … . Matter of McNerney v Carmel Cent. Sch. Dist., 2022 NY Slip Op 02799, Second Dept 4-27-22

Practice Point: Respondents didn’t disclose the bulk of the documents described in the FOIL request until the Article 78 proceeding was started and did not have an adequate excuse for the initial incomplete response. Petitioner was entitled to attorney’s fees as the prevailing party.

 

/by
,

A COURT REVIEWING THE DENIAL OF A FOIL REQUEST CANNOT BASE ITS RULING AFFIRMING THE DENIAL ON A GROUND NOT RAISED BY THE AGENCY TO WHICH THE REQUEST WAS MADE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, noted that a court reviewing the denial of a FOIL request cannot base its ruling on a ground that was not cited by the agency to which the request was made:

“In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to compel the production of material pursuant to FOIL, the agency denying access has the burden of demonstrating that the material requested falls within a statutory exemption, which exemptions are narrowly construed” …  This showing requires the agency “to articulate a particularized and specific justification for denying access,” and “[c]onclusory assertions that certain records fall within a statutory exemption are not sufficient; evidentiary support is needed” … . “If the court is unable to determine whether withheld documents fall entirely within the scope of the asserted exemption, it should conduct an in camera inspection of representative documents and order disclosure of all nonexempt, appropriately redacted material” … .

“It is the settled rule that judicial review of an administrative determination is limited to the grounds invoked by the agency” … . A reviewing court “‘is powerless to affirm the administrative action by substituting what it considers to be a more adequate or proper basis'” … . Matter of McFadden v McDonald, 2022 NY Slip Op 02265, Second Dept 4-6-22

Practice Point: A court affirming the denial of a FOIL request cannot do so on a ground not raised by the agency to which the request was made.

 

/by

IF A GOVERNMENT AGENCY TO WHICH A FOIL REQUEST HAS BEEN MADE DOES NOT POSSESS ANY RESPONSIVE DOCUMENTS, THE AGENCY MUST PROVIDE A CERTIFICATION TO THAT EFFECT (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that if the records petitioner sought in his FOIL request do not exist or cannot be found, the respondent must so certify:

… [T]he statute commands that a government entity that does not supply any record in response to a FOIL request “shall certify that it does not have possession of such record or that such record cannot be found after diligent search” (Public Officers Law § 89 [3] [a] … ). Although “[t]he statute does not specify the manner in which an agency must certify that documents cannot be located” … , respondent failed to provide any such certification … . Accordingly, “we remit the matter to Supreme Court for a determination of whether respondent has any other documents in [his] possession which are responsive to petitioner’s FOIL request” … , or, if no responsive records can be found after a diligent search, for respondent to provide a proper certification as required … . Matter of Thomas v Kane, 2022 NY Slip Op 02164, Third Dept 3-31-22

​Practice Point: If a government agency to which a FOIL request has been made does not possess any responsive documents, the statute requires the agency to provide a certification to that effect.

 

/by
, ,

CERTAIN FOIL REQUESTS RE: THE TRAINING AND PROCEDURES OF THE BOARD OF PAROLE PROTECTED BY ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE; TWO DISSENTERS DISAGREED (THRID DEPT).

The Third Department, over two partial dissents, determined the FOIL request for certain documents relating to the training and procedures of the Board of Parole was properly denied as protected by the attorney-client privilege:

“[T]he attorney-client privilege protects communications between an attorney and his or her client that convey facts relevant to a legal issue under consideration, even if the information contained in the communication is not privileged” … . Regarding the minor offenders memoranda, these documents … were created by counsel and contain legal advice to the Board regarding the state of law and how the Board should conduct interviews in accord with such law. The court-decisions handouts likewise provide counsel’s summary, view and impression of recent case law to the Board. Similarly, the presentation slides and the parole interviews and decision-making handout discuss various legal standards and regulations and, as the Board’s counsel noted, were provided to the Board so it could understand the requirements imposed by them and how it can comply with them. As to the remaining documents — handouts concerning Board interviews, sample decision language concerning departure from COMPAS [Correctional Offender Management Profiling for Alternative Sanctions] and hypothetical Board decisions — they also involve legal advice as to how to reach decisions on parole matters so as to be in compliance with applicable regulations…. .

From the two partial dissents:

… [M]any of the documents contain sections that are devoted solely to informing the Board of Parole of its duly codified statutory and regulatory duties in rendering parole determinations, without any fact-specific discussions or legal advice on how to apply the law to particular scenarios. Although these documents were prepared by attorneys in the course of a professional relationship, the general legal principles outlined therein are not confidential … * * *

… I disagree with the majority because it is my opinion that the proper basis to withhold these documents is the intra-agency exemption, rather than the attorney-client privilege exemption. Matter of Appellate Advocates v New York State Dept. of Corr. & Community Supervision, 2022 NY Slip Op 01354, Third Dept 3-3-22

 

/by
, ,

PETITIONER SOUGHT RECORDS FROM THE NYC TAXI AND LIMOUSINE COMMISSION (TLC) TO DETERMINE HOW THE COMMISSION WAS HANDLING LICENSE APPLICANTS WITH CRIMINAL CONVICTIONS; THE REQUEST SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED; MATTER REMITTED FOR IN CAMERA REVIEW (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined petitioner’s request for records from the NYC Taxi and Limousine Commission (TLC), including fitness interview decisions (FID”s) should not have been denied. The matter was remitted to Supreme Court for an in camera review of the records:

The Driver’s Privacy Protection Act (DPPA) (18 USC § 2721 et seq.) does not impose a blanket prohibition on disclosure of all motor vehicle records. Instead, the law restricts disclosure of “personal information,” which includes personal identifiers of the type that petitioner agrees should be redacted. Moreover, even as to such personal information, the DPPA still expressly provides for disclosure in various circumstances, such as for research purposes, where the personal information will not be further disclosed … . Motor vehicle records under the DPPA are thus not the kind of records as to which production is absolutely prohibited, as long as they are redacted … .

The record is not clear as to what extent it is possible to anonymize production of the TLC fitness interview decisions (FIDs), which petitioner seeks in order to assess whether the TLC has been applying fair standards in its decision making on licensing determinations with respect to people with one or more criminal convictions … . Matter of Brooklyn Legal Servs. v New York City Taxi & Limousine Commn., 2022 NY Slip Op 00809, First Dept 2-8-22

 

/by

BECAUSE THE FOIL REQUESTS REQUIRED THE RESPONDENT TO CREATE NEW DOCUMENTS, THE REQUESTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined FOIL requests for information about kosher meals provided by the NYC Department of Corrections (DOC) should have been denied because the requests would have required the creation of new documents:

… “[A]s a general rule, an agency responding to a FOIL request is not required to create any new record or data that is not already possessed and maintained by it as such” … .

The Press requested the following information: (1) how many inmates requested kosher meals in each of the last 10 years?; (2) how many of those requests were granted and how many were denied?; and (3) the reason for any denials. Here, the DOC established that it “does not track, record or report the amount of Kosher/Halal meals that are requested.” The DOC further established that the number of requests granted or denied and the reasons for the denials are not maintained by the DOC and would call for the creation of new records, which exceeds the scope of the DOC’s obligations in response to a FOIL request … . Matter of Jewish Press, Inc. v New York City Dept. of Corr., 2021 NY Slip Op 07544, Second Dept 12-29-21

 

/by
,

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

 

/by
,

PETITIONER WAS ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES AS THE PREVAILING PARTY IN THIS FOIL PROCEEDING; RESPONDENT HAD AGREED TO ALLOW PETITIONER TO VIEW THE ELECTRONIC FILES USING ITS VIEWING PROGRAM, BUT HAD DENIED, FOR NO GOOD REASON, PETITIONER’S REQUEST TO TRANSFER THE FILES TO A FLASH DRIVE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined petitioner was entitled to attorney’s fees because petitioner substantially prevailed on certain requests for documents after commencing an Article 78 proceeding. With respect to one of the requests, although respondent had agreed to allow petitioner to view the requested electronic files using respondent’s viewing program, respondent, without good reason, denied petitioner’s request to place the files on a flash drive:

We agree with petitioner that Supreme Court erred in denying its request for counsel fees. As relevant here, a court in a FOIL proceeding “shall assess, against such agency involved, reasonable [counsel] fees and other litigation costs . . . in any case . . . in which such person has substantially prevailed and the court finds that the agency had no reasonable basis for denying access” to the records sought … . “‘A petitioner substantially prevails under Public Officers Law § 89 (4) (c) when it receives all the information that it requested and to which it was entitled in response to the underlying FOIL litigation'” … .

Petitioner substantially prevailed in the litigation. Through use of the judicial process, petitioner received documents responsive to demand Nos. 2-5 in the medium it desired and obtained a certification under demand Nos. 6-8 pertaining to multifamily homes … . Contrary to Supreme Court’s finding, the fact that the disclosure under demand Nos. 2-5 stemmed from a mutual accord between the parties does not change the analysis, as “the voluntariness of an agency’s disclosure after the commencement of a CPLR article 78 proceeding will not preclude a finding that a litigant has substantially prevailed” … . Moreover, respondent did not have a reasonable basis for the precommencement denial of the records responsive to demand Nos. 2-5, as evidenced by its subsequent production of said documents in electronic form. Matter of Aron Law PLLC v Town of Fallsburg, 2021 NY Slip Op 06593, Third Dept 11-24-21

 

/by

Categories

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

Copyright © 2022 New York Appellate Digest, LLC
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy