Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) Archives

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

January 13, 2021/0 Comments/by Bruce Freeman

Freedom of Information Law (FOIL)

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

January 12, 2021/0 Comments/by Bruce Freeman

Appeals, Attorneys, Environmental Law, Freedom of Information Law (FOIL)

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

December 24, 2020/by Bruce Freeman

Administrative Law, Environmental Law, Freedom of Information Law (FOIL)

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

December 10, 2020/by Bruce Freeman

Environmental Law, Freedom of Information Law (FOIL)

FOIL REQUEST FOR THE “COMPREHENSIVE STUDY” RE NEW YORK’S TRANSITION TO 100% RENEWABLE ENERGY WAS PROPERLY INTERPRETED TO BE A DEMAND FOR THE COMPLETED REPORT, WHICH THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION (DEC) CERTIFIED HAD NOT BEEN CREATED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined petitioner’s FOIL request was properly denied because the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) certified that the document did not exist because it had not been completed. Petitioner had requested “an electronic copy of the ‘comprehensive study’ ordered by Gov. Andrew Cuomo ‘to determine the most rapid, cost-effective, and responsible pathway to reach 100[%] renewable energy statewide’ as detailed in [the] January 10, 2017 press release and as completed prior to revisions mentioned publicly by NYSERDA [New York State Energy and Research Development Authority] in February 2019.” The majority held the DEC properly interpreted the request as a demand for the completed report, which the DEC certified had not been created. The dissenters argued the request should not have been interpreted as a demand for the completed study, but rather as a request for any relevant documents:

Where, as here, an agency maintains that it does not possess a requested record, the agency is required to certify as much (see Public Officers Law § 89 [3]). Here, respondents submitted affidavits from Alicia Barton, the president and chief executive officer of NYSERDA, and Carl Mas, the Director of the Energy and Environmental Analysis Department of NYSERDA, as well as an affirmation from Daniella Keller, an attorney who served as DEC’s records access officer at the relevant time. In their sworn affidavits, Barton and Mas attested that the study referenced in Governor Cuomo’s January 2017 press release had yet to be completed at the time of petitioner’s FOIL request. Keller stated, in her affirmation, that DEC records custodians had conducted a search of relevant files and advised her that the requested record did not exist because the study “had not been drafted.” Such sworn attestations amply satisfy respondents’ obligations under Public Officers Law § 89 (3) … .

Where an agency properly certifies that it does not possess a requested record, a petitioner may be entitled to a hearing on the issue if it can “articulate a demonstrable factual basis to support [the] contention that the requested document[] existed and [was] within the [agency’s] control”… [S]peculation and conjecture does not warrant a hearing or a rejection of the sworn statements of Barton and Mas — individuals with personal knowledge of the study and its status — and Keller … . Matter of Empire Ctr. for Pub. Policy v New York State Energy & Research Dev. Auth., 2020 NY Slip Op 07126, Third Dept 11-25-20

November 25, 2020/by Bruce Freeman

Freedom of Information Law (FOIL)

SALARIES OF UNDERCOVER POLICE OFFICERS NOT SUBJECT TO DISCLOSURE PURSUANT TO A FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW REQUEST (FIRST DEPT).

he First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the salary of undercover police officers should not be disclosed:

FOIL provides that “[n]othing in [the statute] shall be construed to require any entity to prepare any record not possessed or maintained by such entity” (Public Officers Law § 89[3][a]), with exceptions not raised here. Accordingly, respondent is not obligated to compile “aggregate data” “from the documents or records in its possession” … .

In any event, the information sought as to the salaries of undercover police officers, whether aggregated or individualized, is exempt from disclosure under FOIL’s public safety exemption (Public Officers Law § 87[2][f]). Respondent met its burden of making a particularized showing that publicly releasing this information would create “a possibility of endangerment” to the public’s safety … . Respondent submitted an affidavit of the Undercover Coordinator of the New York City Police Department (NYPD) establishing that this information could be used to estimate the total number of undercover officers employed by NYPD. The analysis of petitioner’s request must consider not only the instant FOIL request for information as to fiscal year 2017, but also future requests which could be made for equivalent information as to other years. Such information would allow members of the public to estimate the increases or decreases in the overall number of undercover officers, which could “undermine their deterrent effect, hamper NYPD’s counterterrorism operations, and increase the likelihood of another terrorist attack” … . Respondent’s past disclosure of salary and other information as to certain public employees not employed by NYPD is not dispositive. Matter of Empire Ctr. for Pub. Policy v New York City Off. of Payroll Admin., 2020 NY Slip Op 05449, First Dept 10-6-20

October 6, 2020/by Bruce Freeman

Freedom of Information Law (FOIL)

THE CITY MAY NOT CHARGE A FEE FOR REVIEW AND REDACTION OF POLICE BODY-WORN CAMERA FOOTAGE PURSUANT TO A FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW (FOIL) REQUEST (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the city was not entitled to charge a fee for the review or redaction of police body-worn camera (BWC) footage under the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL):

… [R]espondents may not charge petitioner a fee for the costs associated with their review or redaction of the BWC footage requested by petitioner … . We note that the Committee on Open Government has specifically opined that “if the document exists in electronic format and the agency has the authority and the ability to redact electronically, we believe it would be reasonable for the agency to provide the requested redacted copy at no charge” (Comm on Open Govt FOIL—AO—18904 [2012]). While “the advisory opinions issued by the Committee on Open Government are not binding on the courts . . . , an agency’s interpretation of the statutes it administers generally should be upheld if not unreasonable or irrational” … . We therefore modify the judgment by vacating that part of the judgment permitting respondents to charge petitioner a fee for the cost of reviewing and redacting the requested video footage. Matter of Forsyth v City of Rochester, 2020 NY Slip Op 04250, Fourth Dept 7-24-20

July 24, 2020/by Bruce Freeman

Freedom of Information Law (FOIL)

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH PROPERLY DENIED THE FOIL REQUEST FOR CERTAIN DOCUMENTS ON THE GROUND THE DOCUMENTS WERE NOT ‘REASONABLY DESCRIBED’ (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the respondent’s (NYS Department of Health’s) denial of petitioners’ request for certain documents relating to respondents’ communications with Ancestry.com concerning death records was properly denied on the ground the requested documents were not “reasonably described” such that they could be located with a “reasonable effort:”

… [R]espondent established that its indexing system did not permit searching either its paper or electronic records by the name of an entity, and that it had no method of searching its correspondence records, whether on paper or in digital form, for the terms provided in petitioners’ request. * * *

… [W]e find that respondent satisfied its burden to demonstrate that petitioners’ FOIL request did not provide a reasonable description of the records sought that was adequate to permit respondent to identify and locate the requested documents … . Matter of Reclaim the Records v New York State Dept. of Health, 2020 NY Slip Op 03968, Third Dept 7-16-20

July 16, 2020/by Bruce Freeman

Administrative Law, Civil Procedure, Freedom of Information Law (FOIL)

AN ARTICLE 78 REVIEW OF THE RESPONSE TO A FOIL REQUEST MAY ONLY CONSIDER THE GROUND FOR THE INITIAL AGENCY DECISION; THE GROUNDS FOR A SUBSEQUENT DECISION ISSUED AFTER THE ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING WAS COMMENCED SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED; PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR THE METADATA OF THE DISCLOSED DOCUMENTS MUST BE DENIED BECAUSE METADATA WAS NOT ‘REASONABLY DESCRIBED’ IN THE FOIL REQUEST (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the Article 78 review must be confined to the ground asserted in the agency’s initial FOIL decision and could not consider the grounds asserted in the agency’s subsequent decision issued after petitioner brought the Article 78 proceeding. The ground for the initial decision had been abandoned in the second decision. The court noted that the petitioner’s demand for the metadata of the disclosed documents must be denied because metadata was not “reasonably described” in the FOIL request:

This proceeding is not in the nature of mandamus to compel. Instead, the standard of review is whether the denial of the FOIL request was “affected by an error of law” (CPLR 7803[3] … ), for which judicial review is “limited to the grounds invoked by the agency” in its determination … . Since respondents abandoned the exemption raised in their initial decision, they cannot meet their burden to “establish[] that the . . . documents qualif[y] for the exemption” … . Further, as respondents “did not make any contemporaneous claim that the requested materials” fit the newly raised exemptions, “to allow [them] to do so now would be contrary to [Court of Appeals] precedent, as well as to the spirit and purpose of FOIL” … . …

An agency is only required to produce “a record reasonably described” (Public Officers Law § 89[3][a]). Contrary to petitioner’s contention, the FOIL request for “complete copies” of communications and documents cannot fairly be read to have implicitly requested metadata associated with those copies. Matter of Barry v O’Neill, 2020 NY Slip Op 04007, First Dept 7-16-20

July 16, 2020/by Bruce Freeman

Attorneys, Freedom of Information Law (FOIL)

ALTHOUGH PETITIONER ULTIMATELY PREVAILED AND WAS PROVIDED WITH THE NASSAU COUNTY TRAFFIC AND PARKING VIOLATIONS AGENCY (TPVA) RECORDS PURSUANT TO ITS FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW (FOIL) REQUEST, BECAUSE THE TPVA PERFORMS EXEMPT ADJUDICATORY FUNCTIONS AS WELL AS NON-EXEMPT PROSECUTORIAL FUNCTIONS THE COUNTY HAD A REASONABLE BASIS FOR INITIALLY WITHHOLDING THE RECORDS; $30,000 ATTORNEY’S-FEES AWARD REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that, although the petitioner ultimately prevailed in its Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) action, it was not entitled to attorney’s fees. The petitioner sought records re: Nassau County’s photo speed monitoring system. The records were held by the Nassau County Traffic and Parking Violations Agency (TPVA). Initially the request was denied on the ground that the TPVA is part of the judiciary and therefore was not an “agency” within the meaning of the Public Officers Law. However, the Court of Appeals has clarified that there are aspects of the TPVA which are adjudicatory and aspects which are prosecutorial. Ultimately it was determined the sought records related to the prosecutorial function and were made available to the petitioner. The Supreme Court awarded petitioner over $30,000 in attorney’s fees. But the Second Department reversed:

We disagree with the Supreme Court’s determination to grant the petitioner’s motion for an award of attorney’s fees. Here, the petitioner “substantially prevailed” in the proceeding, inasmuch as the petitioner eventually received the documents sought from the TPVA (see Public Officers Law § 89[4][c] … ). However, the TPVA had a reasonable basis for denying the petitioner’s request for its records based on its reliance upon the Court of Appeals’ statement that “the TPVA was intended to be an arm of the District Court” … , and FOIL’s express exclusion of “judiciary” from its definition of “agency” (Public Officers Law § 86[1], [3]). Although it was ultimately determined that TPVA records concerning its nonadjudicatory responsibilities are not exempt from disclosure pursuant to the Public Officers Law, it remains that TPVA had a reasonable basis in law for withholding the requested materials … . Accordingly, the petitioner’s motion should have been denied. Matter of Law Offs. of Cory H. Morris v County of Nassau, 2020 NY Slip Op 03513, Second Dept 6-24-20

June 24, 2020/by Bruce Freeman

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).

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

FOIL REQUEST FOR THE “COMPREHENSIVE STUDY” RE NEW YORK’S TRANSITION TO 100% RENEWABLE ENERGY WAS PROPERLY INTERPRETED TO BE A DEMAND FOR THE COMPLETED REPORT, WHICH THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION (DEC) CERTIFIED HAD NOT BEEN CREATED (THIRD DEPT).

SALARIES OF UNDERCOVER POLICE OFFICERS NOT SUBJECT TO DISCLOSURE PURSUANT TO A FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW REQUEST (FIRST DEPT).

THE CITY MAY NOT CHARGE A FEE FOR REVIEW AND REDACTION OF POLICE BODY-WORN CAMERA FOOTAGE PURSUANT TO A FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW (FOIL) REQUEST (FOURTH DEPT).

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH PROPERLY DENIED THE FOIL REQUEST FOR CERTAIN DOCUMENTS ON THE GROUND THE DOCUMENTS WERE NOT ‘REASONABLY DESCRIBED’ (THIRD DEPT).

Categories

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