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

RECORDS OF THE NEW YORK POLICE DEPARTMENT’S USE OF VANS WHICH SCAN BUILDINGS AND VEHICLES FOR EXPLOSIVES AND DRUGS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE; RECORDS RELATING TO THE HEALTH AND SAFETY EFFECTS OF THE SCANNING ARE NOT EXEMPT.

The First Department, partially reversing Supreme Court, determined certain records relating to the NYPD's use of Z-backscatter vans for terrorism-related surveillance were exempt from disclosure. The Z-backscatter technology uses radiation to scan buildings and vehicles for evidence of explosives and drugs. People are exposed to low levels of radiation by the devices. The Appellate Division held that information related to past uses of the vans was exempt from disclosure, but information related to the health and safety effects was not exempt:

NYPD has articulated a “particularized and specific justification for not disclosing” these records … . NYPD submitted an affidavit of Richard Daddario, NYPD's Deputy Commissioner of Counterterrorism, who averred that the vans are a highly specialized and nonroutine technology used to combat terrorism in New York City. Daddario explained that in light of the ongoing threat of terrorism, releasing information describing the strategies, operational tactics, uses and numbers of the vans would undermine their deterrent effect, hamper NYPD's counterterrorism operations, and increase the likelihood of another terrorist attack. * * *

The court … properly directed NYPD to disclose tests or reports regarding the radiation dose or other health and safety effects of the vans. Daddario's affidavit does not explain how general health and safety information about the van's radiation could be exploited by terrorists. Matter of Grabell v New York City Police Dept., 2016 NY Slip Op 03685, CtApp 5-10-16

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (RECORDS OF THE USE OF VANS BY THE NYPD WHICH SCAN BUILDINGS AND VEHICLES FOR EXPLOSIVES AND DRUGS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE; RECORDS RELATING TO THE HEALTH AND SAFETY EFFECTS OF THE SCANNING ARE NOT EXEMPT)/SURVEILLANCE (RECORDS OF THE USE OF VANS BY THE NYPD WHICH SCAN BUILDINGS AND VEHICLES FOR EXPLOSIVES AND DRUGS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE; RECORDS RELATING TO THE HEALTH AND SAFETY EFFECTS OF THE SCANNING ARE NOT EXEMPT)/POLICE (RECORDS OF THE USE OF VANS BY THE NYPD WHICH SCAN BUILDINGS AND VEHICLES FOR EXPLOSIVES AND DRUGS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE; RECORDS RELATING TO THE HEALTH AND SAFETY EFFECTS OF THE SCANNING ARE NOT EXEMPT)/BACKSCATTER TECHNOLOGY (RECORDS OF THE USE OF VANS BY THE NYPD WHICH SCAN BUILDINGS AND VEHICLES FOR EXPLOSIVES AND DRUGS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE; RECORDS RELATING TO THE HEALTH AND SAFETY EFFECTS OF THE SCANNING ARE NOT EXEMPT)

REQUEST FOR THE NAME OF THE MOHEL WHO PERFORMED CIRCUMCISION ON AN INFANT WHO BECAME INFECTED WITH HERPES SIMPLEX VIRUS PROPERLY DENIED.

The Second Department determined a reporter’s (Berger’s) request to the NYC Department of Health for the name of a mohel who performed a circumcision on an infant who became infected with herpes simplex virus (HSV-1) was properly denied. A person’s medical history is exempt from disclosure under the Public Officers Law. Revealing the mohel’s name would reveal his medical condition:

As relevant here, Public Officers Law § 87(2)(b) expressly exempts from disclosure records that “if disclosed would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy” under Public Officers Law § 89(2). Public Officers Law § 89(2)(b)(i) expressly includes “medical . . . histories” within the ambit of “unwarranted invasion of personal privacy” … . In turn, the Court of Appeals has held that “medical history” is ” information that one would reasonably expect to be included as a relevant and material part of a proper medical history'” … .

Here, inherent in Berger’s request for “the name of the mohel who infected an infant with HSV-1 during ritual circumcision in December 2012” is that the mohel is himself infected with, or a carrier of, the HSV-1 virus. Thus, the petitioners’ argument that they are not requesting the mohel’s “medical history,” but only his name, is without merit. Inasmuch as that information is undeniably ” information that one would reasonably expect to be included as a relevant and material part of [the mohel’s] proper medical history'” … , it is “medical history” within the meaning of Public Officers Law § 89(2)(b)(i). The conclusion is thus inescapable that disclosure of the record Berger sought would be an “unwarranted invasion of personal privacy” under Public Officers Law § 89(2)(b)(i) and Public Officers Law § 87(2)(b). Matter of Berger v New York City Dept. of Health & Mental Hygiene, 2016 NY Slip Op 01667, 2nd Dept 3-9-16

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW (FOIL) (REQUEST FOR NAME OF MOHEL WHO INFECTED INFANT WITH HERPES SIMPLEX VIRUS PROPERLY DENIED)/PUBLIC OFFICERS LAW (FOIL, REQUEST FOR NAME OF MOHEL WHO INFECTED INFANT WITH HERPES SIMPLEX VIRUS PROPERLY DENIED)

, ,

TRADE SECRET EXEMPTION DOES NOT REQUIRE PROOF DISCLOSURE WOULD RESULT IN COMPETITIVE INJURY.

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Rose, determined the exemption from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) for trade secrets did not require a showing that disclosure of the trade secrets would result in substantial competitive injury. Rather, the statute, Public Officers Law 87 (2) (d), provides two distinct exemptions from disclosure: one for bona fide trade secrets and one for documents which, if disclosed, would cause substantial injury to the competitive position of the owner of the documents. Supreme Court’s finding that the exemption for trade secrets did not require proof of injury to competitive position was upheld. There are strict criteria in place for determining whether information constitutes a bona fide trade secret. Applying those criteria, Supreme Court properly determined that several documents provided by petitioner (Verizon) to the Department of Public Service were exempt from FOIL disclosure as bona fide trade secrets:

 

As pertinent here, Public Officers Law § 87 (2) (d) protects from FOIL disclosure “all records” that “are trade secrets or are submitted to an agency by a commercial enterprise or derived from information obtained from a commercial enterprise and which if disclosed would cause substantial injury to the competitive position of the subject enterprise.” Respondents argue that this language unambiguously indicates that the Legislature intended to create a single FOIL exemption for all types of confidential commercial information imparted to an agency — including trade secrets — and to subject all such information to the same showing of substantial competitive injury. * * *

Our courts have long recognized “[t]he importance of trade secret protection and the resultant public benefit” … , and have developed a fact-intensive inquiry to determine whether specific commercial information is a bona fide trade secret worthy of such protection. First, it must be established that the information in question is a “‘formula, pattern, device or compilation of information which is used in one’s business, and which gives [one] an opportunity to obtain an advantage over competitors who do not know or use it'” … . Second, if the information fits this general definition, then an additional factual determination must be made

“concerning whether the alleged trade secret is truly secret by considering: (1) the extent to which the information is known outside of the business; (2) the extent to which it is known by employees and others involved in the business; (3) the extent of measures taken by the business to guard the secrecy of the information; (4) the value of the information to the business and its competitors; (5) the amount of effort or money expended by the business in developing the information; [and] (6) the ease or difficulty with which the information could be properly acquired or duplicated by others” … .

Inasmuch as an entity seeking to establish the existence of a bona fide trade secret must make a sufficient showing with respect to each of these factors, we agree with Supreme Court that it is wholly unnecessary and overly burdensome to require the entity to then make a separate showing that FOIL disclosure of the trade secret would cause substantial injury to its competitive position.  Matter of Verizon N.Y., Inc. v New York State Pub. Serv. Commn.2016 NY Slip Op 00239, 3rd Dept 1-14-16

 

HUMAN RIGHTS LAW (REFUSAL TO ALLOW SAME-SEX MARRIAGE ON PETITIONER’S PROPERTY CONSTITUTED AN UNLAWFUL DISCRIMINATORY PRACTICE)/CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (REFUSAL TO ALLOW SAME-SEX MARRIAGE ON PETITIONERS’ PROPERTY DID NOT VIOLATE PETITIONERS’ RIGHTS TO FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION, FREE SPEECH OR EXPRESSIVE ASSOCIATION)/SAME-SEX MARRIAGE (REFUSAL TO ALLOW VIOLATED HUMAN RIGHTS LAW)/PLACE OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION (DEFINED FOR PURPOSES OF UNLAWFUL DISCRIMINATION UNDER THE HUMAN RIGHTS LAW)

REQUEST FOR STATEMENTS MADE BY WITNESSES WHO DID NOT TESTIFY AT TRIAL (BECAUSE PETITIONER PLED GUILTY) SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED; NON-TESTIFYING WITNESS STATEMENTS ARE CONFIDENTIAL; REQUEST FOR GRAND JURY MINUTES SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED; ALTHOUGH THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS INVOLVED, PETITIONER DID NOT MAKE THE REQUISITE FACTUAL SHOWING OF A PARTICULARIZED NEED FOR DISCLOSURE.

The Second Department, over an extensive dissent, reversing Supreme Court, determined that petitioner’s request for disclosure of statements made by non-testifying witnesses and the grand jury minutes should not have been granted. In 1988 petitioner pled guilty to several sex offenses. Therefore, none of the witnesses who gave statements in connection the petitioner’s criminal case testified. The Second Department held the statements remained confidential. With respect to the grand jury minutes, the court noted that the public interest was involved, but was not enough to justify disclosure because petitioner did not make a factual showing of a particularized need for disclosure:

” [T]he statements of nontestifying witnesses are confidential and not disclosable under FOIL'” … . Thus, the documents sought by the petitioner, which contain statements of nontestifying witnesses, are not disclosable under FOIL.

Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the fact that he pleaded guilty and forfeited his right to a trial does not warrant a different conclusion. Under this Court’s jurisprudence, the statements of nontestifying witnesses are confidential, and that “cloak of confidentiality” is removed “once the statements have been used in open court” … . The entry of the petitioner’s plea of guilty did not remove the “cloak of confidentiality” from the statements of the nontestifying witnesses. Thus, those statements remain confidential and are not disclosable under FOIL. * * *

[A] “… party seeking disclosure [of grand jury minutes] will not satisfy the compelling and particularized need threshold simply by asserting, or even showing, that a public interest is involved.” Rather, “[t]he party must, by a factual presentation, demonstrate why, and to what extent, the party requires the minutes of a particular grand jury proceeding to advance the actions or measures taken, or proposed (e.g., legal action, administrative inquiry or legislative investigation), to insure that the public interest has been, or will be, served'” … . …

Despite the public interest involved in this case, the petitioner’s submissions did not establish a compelling and particularized need for disclosure of the grand jury materials … . The petitioner failed to demonstrate, by factual presentation, why, and to what extent, the grand jury materials are necessary to insure that the public interest will be served. In particular, the petitioner failed to sufficiently demonstrate how examination of the grand jury minutes and records will support his claim of actual innocence. Matter of Friedman v Rice, 2015 NY Slip Op 09103, 2nd Dept 12-9-15

MONTHLY COMPILATION INDEX ENTRIES FOR THIS CASE:

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW [FOIL] (STATEMENTS OF NON-TESTIFYING WITNESSES ARE CONFIDENTIAL)/FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW [FOIL] (GRAND JURY MINUTES, NO FACTUAL SHOWING OF PARTICULARIZED NEED FOR DISCLOSURE)/GRAND JURY MINUTES (FOIL REQUEST, NO FACTUAL SHOWING OF A PARTICULARIZED NEED FOR DISCLOSURE)

,

Audit Procedures, Disclosure of Which Could Impede Investigations, Are Exempt from Disclosure

The Third Department noted that documents reflecting audit procedures used by the Department of Education are exempt from a FOIL request if they would facilitate attempts to circumvent the law, even though the documents were not directly related to law enforcement proceedings:

“FOIL is based on a presumption of access to the records, and an agency . . . carries the burden of demonstrating that the exemption applies to the FOIL request” … . The Department here relied upon Public Officers Law § 87 (2) (e) in providing redacted records and, specifically, a provision that exempts records from disclosure that “are compiled for law enforcement purposes and which, if disclosed, would . . . interfere with law enforcement investigations or judicial proceedings” (Public Officers Law § 87 [2] [e] [i]). Respondents asserted that the redactions were necessary because disclosure of the unredacted documents would reveal auditing techniques that would enable the providers of preschool special education programs to conceal their financial misdeeds more effectively.

The Department was directed to prepare the audit guidelines in the wake of audits conducted by the Comptroller that “found a pattern of mismanagement, waste and even fraud by numerous private providers of preschool special education” … . Those audits resulted in criminal investigations and the referral of “numerous” certified public accountants to the Department for disciplinary proceedings, and there is no reason to doubt that audits conducted under the guidance of the Department are also aimed at uncovering financial malfeasance. As such, while the guidelines and related documents did not arise from a specific law enforcement investigation, they were nevertheless compiled with law enforcement purposes in mind, and are exempt from disclosure if their release would enable individuals to “frustrate pending or prospective investigations or to use that information to impede a prosecution” … . Matter of Madeiros v New York State Educ. Dept., 2015 NY Slip Op 08028, 3rd Dept 11-5-15

 

,

Records of a Police Investigation of a Police Officer Who Has Been Terminated Are Not “Personnel Records” Subject to Exemption from Disclosure Pursuant to the “Personnel Records” Provision of the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL)

The Third Department determined that the personnel records associated with the investigation of an off-duty police officer’s involvement in a hit and run accident were generally exempt from disclosure pursuant to the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) (as police “personnel records”). However, the investigation continued after the officer’s employment was terminated. The records of the post-termination investigation were not “personnel records” and, therefore, were not exempt from disclosure under the “personnel records” provision:

As is relevant here, Civil Rights Law § 50-a (1) exempts from disclosure the “personnel records” of police officers that are “used to evaluate performance toward continued employment or promotion.” …

Proof that information was generated for the purpose of assessing an employee’s alleged misconduct brings that information within the protection of Civil Rights Law § 50-a (1) … . This does not end our inquiry, however, because uncontested evidence established that respondent’s investigation of Beardsley continued after he had resigned as an employee of respondent. We agree with petitioners that police departments who investigate persons who are no longer their employees are not conducting investigations of “personnel” within the meaning of Civil Rights Law § 50-a (1). The plain meaning of the word personnel identifies individuals with some current employment relationship with an organization. This meaning of personnel is further confirmed by the statute, as individuals who are not current employees cannot be considered for either “continued employment or promotion” (Civil Rights Law § 50-a [1]). Accordingly, Supreme Court erred in finding that respondent met its burden of establishing that the materials resulting from its investigation after Beardsley had resigned were for the purpose of assessing his continued employment or promotion and that, as a result, Civil Rights Law § 50-a (1) provided confidentiality to such materials. Matter of Hearst Corp. v New York State Police, 2015 NY Slip Op 07729, 3rd Dept 10-22-15

 

With the Exception of Residence Addresses Included in the Requested Documents, Respondent Fire Department Did Not Meet Its Burden of Demonstrating the Applicability of a Statutory Exemption to Disclosure

The Second Department determined the respondent fire department did not demonstrate why any information other than the residence addresses should be redacted from the requested documents. Providing the residence addresses would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. Conclusory assertions by the fire department were not otherwise sufficient to meet the department’s burden for demonstrating the applicability of a statutory exemption from disclosure:

Under FOIL, government records are “presumptively open” for public inspection and copying, unless they fall within an enumerated statutory exemption of Public Officers Law § 87(2) … . The exemptions are to be “narrowly construed” so as to ensure maximum public access …, and the burden rests on the agency to demonstrate that the requested material in fact qualifies for exemption (see Public Officers Law § 89[4][b]…). To meet that burden, the agency must “articulate particularized and specific justification” for the nondisclosure at issue … .

Here, the Fire Department failed to articulate a particularized and specific justification for any of the redacted information at issue, except for the residence addresses contained in the subject documents. The Fire Department’s conclusory assertions that the redacted information, other than residence addresses, fell within a statutory exemption were insufficient to meet its burden of demonstrating that the requested information was exempt from disclosure … . Matter of Villalobos v New York City Fire Dept., 2015 NY Slip Op 06249, 2nd Dept 7-22-15

 

, ,

Area in the Vicinity of the Indian Point Nuclear Power Facility Properly Classified as a Statutorily Protected Environmental Habitat

The Third Department affirmed the Secretary of State’s expansion of a statutory “significant coastal fish and wildlife habitat area” along the Hudson River in the vicinity of the Indian Point nuclear power facility.  The petitioner, the owner of Indian Point, sought to have the designation of the area as a statutorily protected environmental habitat annulled. The Third Department (1) explained a court’s powers when reviewing an agency’s interpretation of its own regulations; (2) determined the agency did not engage in formal rulemaking (which would be subject to the stringent procedural requirements of the State Administrative Procedure Act); and (3) determined certain documents were properly withheld re: petitioner’s Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) requests:

When an agency interprets a regulation that it promulgated, deference is afforded to that agency’s interpretive approach unless it is “irrational or unreasonable” … . To this end, the promulgating agency’s interpretation may not be adjudged irrational simply because other rational constructions of the regulatory provision in question exist …, nor because the promulgating agency’s reading of the relevant regulatory language either broadens its plain-language scope … or amounts to a “strict[ly] literal interpretation” … . Furthermore, “the determination of an agency acting pursuant to its authority and within its area of expertise is[, similarly,] entitled to judicial deference” … . In contrast, an agency’s interpretation of one of its own regulations is not entitled to deference if that interpretation contradicts the plain language of the regulation (see Matter of Elcor Health Servs. v Novello, 100 NY2d at 280), and an agency may be deemed to have acted irrationally if an interpretation of a regulation marks an unsubstantiated departure from the agency’s previous position on a given subject … . * * *

State Administrative Procedure Act § 102 (2) (a) (i), in pertinent part, defines a “[r]ule” as “the whole or part of each agency statement, regulation or code of general applicability that implements or applies law.” In contrast, State Administrative Procedure Act § 102 (2) (b) (iv) excludes from this statutory definition “forms and instructions, interpretive statements and statements of general policy which in themselves have no legal effect but are merely explanatory.” While “there is no clear bright line between a ‘rule’ or ‘regulation’ and an interpretative policy,” an agency does not engage in formal rulemaking when the practical effect of an agency’s updated policy is that a discrete group of regulated entities or individuals likely will be subjected to a greater degree of regulatory scrutiny than are the majority of those regulated by the agency … . When an agency engages in a course of regulatory action that amounts to formal rulemaking but does not comply with the procedural requirements of State Administrative Procedure Act article 2, that regulatory action must be annulled … .

We agree with respondents that the habitat boundaries’ modification that gave rise to Hudson Highlands did not amount to formal rulemaking.  * * *

In response to petitioners’ discovery and Freedom of Information Law requests, respondents withheld a small number of documents pursuant to Public Officers’ Law § 87 (2) (g), which allows for “people within an agency to exchange opinions, advice and criticism freely and frankly, without the chilling prospect of public disclosure” … . Supreme Court correctly concluded that “respondents’ interest in maintaining the confidentiality of the records and in allowing the candid exchange of ‘opinions, advice and criticism'” was valid and outweighed petitioners’ interest in having them. Petitioners argue that respondents waived the deliberative process privilege by describing the agencies’ decision-making process within the scientists’ affidavits. We find petitioners’ claims that respondents have waived the deliberative process privilege to be unpersuasive … . Matter of Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2, LLC v New York State Dept. of State, 2015 NY Slip Op 05988, 3rd Dept 7-9-15

 

Request for Mugshots and Identifying Information Re: Arrestees for Posting on Petitioner’s Website Denied—Posting of Such Information Would Constitute an Unwarranted Invasion of Privacy

Petitioner sought mugshots and other identifying information re: arrestees from the NYC Department of Corrections (DOC) for posting on his website.  Petitioner charged a fee for removing a photo from the site.  DOC denied the request. Supreme Court denied the Article 78 petition seeking reversal of the DOC’s denial.  The Second Department determined DOC did not meet its burden of demonstrating the applicability of any of the statutory exemptions from disclosure in the Public Officers Law (DOC’s assertions were “conclusory”), but went on to determine release of the photos and information would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy and may endanger the life or safety of the arrestees:

The agency’s burden of demonstrating that the material requested falls within a statutory exemption “requires the [agency] to articulate a “particularized and specific justification for denying access”‘” … . ” Conclusory assertions that certain records fall within a statutory exemption are not sufficient; evidentiary support is needed'” … .

Pursuant to Public Officers Law § 87(2)(b), an agency “may deny access to records” where disclosure “would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy under the provisions of [Public Officers Law § 89(2)(b)].” “[W]here none of the [exemptions under Public Officers Law § 89(2)(b) are] applicable, a court must decide whether any invasion of privacy . . . is “unwarranted” by balancing the privacy interests at stake against the public interest in disclosure of the information'” … .

Here, the DOC proffered only conclusory assertions that denial of the requested records “would result in economic or personal hardship to the subject party,” which was insufficient to demonstrate the applicability of Public Officers Law § 89(2)(b)(iv) … . The DOC also failed to establish that any individuals received an express or implied promise of confidentiality from it, as required to demonstrate the applicability of Public Officers Law § 89(2)(b)(v) … .

In view of the DOC’s failure to demonstrate the applicability of any exemptions under Public Officers Law § 89(2)(b), this Court must determine whether disclosure would constitute an “unwarranted invasion of personal privacy” by ” balancing the privacy interests at stake against the public interest in disclosure of the information'” … . Here, the petitioner has not set forth any direct public interest in disclosure of the records at issue, which were sought for the sole purpose of posting personal information and photographs of individuals currently or formerly in the custody of the DOC on a website that collects payment in exchange for removing the photographs. On the other hand, the record reflects that the privacy interests of numerous individuals are implicated, including those individuals who were ultimately acquitted of any criminal charges and adolescents between the ages of 16 and 18 who are presently or were in the custody of the DOC. Consequently, under the particular circumstances of this case, a balancing of the privacy interests at stake against any public interest in disclosure necessitates a determination that disclosure of the records at issue would constitute an “unwarranted invasion of personal privacy” (Public Officers Law § 87[2][b]…). Matter of Prall v New York City Dept. of Corrections, 2015 NY Slip Op 04653, 2nd Dept 6-3-15

 

,

Documents Which Reveal the Identity of Sex Offense Victims Are Categorically Excluded from Disclosure Under the Civil Rights Law and Public Officers Law (Even If the Identifying Information Can Be Redacted)

The Third Department determined petitioner’s request for evidence held by the district attorney’s office was properly denied.  The requested evidence consisted of chat logs and the contents of computers which identified the victims of sex offenses. The court noted that, even if the identification could be reacted, the documents are categorically excluded from disclosure under the Civil Rights Law and Public Officers Law.  Matter of MacKenzie v Seiden, 2015 NY Slip Op 04537, 3rd Dept 5-28-15

 

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