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

Documents Relevant to a Civil Investigation by the Department of Taxation and Finance Were Not Protected from FOIL Disclosure by a Statute which Specifically Relates to Criminal Investigations

The Third Department affirmed Supreme Court’s determination that documents which were pertinent to a civil, as opposed to a criminal, investigation, were not shielded from disclosure by Public Officers Law 87(2)(e)(iv).  The petitioners were notified they were subject to an “interrogation” by the Department of Taxation and Finance about job-related expense deductions. Under a FOIL request, the petitioners sought documents which included “interrogation” questions.  Because Public Officers Law 87(2)(e)(iv) protects such documents from disclosure only if they are part of a criminal investigation, Supreme Court properly held the documents should be disclosed:

“Under FOIL, agency records are presumptively available for public inspection, without regard to the need or purpose of the applicant, unless the requested documents fall within one of the exemptions set forth in Public Officers Law § 87 (2)” … . In this regard, “[e]xemptions are narrowly construed, with the agency that seeks to prevent disclosure bearing the burden of demonstrating that the requested material falls squarely within an exemption by articulating a particularized and specific justification for denying access” … .

Here, in denying access to the 68 pages of proposed interrogation questions, respondents relied exclusively upon Public Officers Law § 87 (2) (e) (iv), which exempts from disclosure “records or portions thereof that . . . reveal criminal investigative techniques or procedures, except routine techniques and procedures.” The statute — on its face — references criminal investigative techniques or procedures, and prevailing case law suggests that this exemption applies only to a FOIL request that, at the very least, has its genesis in an underlying criminal investigation or prosecution … . Matter of Aurigemma v New York State Dept. of Taxation & Fin., 2015 NY Slip Op 04356, 3rd Dept 5-21-15

 

,

Supreme Court Used the Wrong Standards When It Denied Petitioner’s Request for Documents Relating to Complaints Alleging the Improper Use of School Property by an Employee of the Department of Education (the Employee Gave a Speech on School Property Which May Have Violated the Chancellor’s Regulations re: the Use of School Property for Political Purposes)—Correct Analytical Criteria Explained and Applied

The First Department determined Supreme Court used the wrong criteria when it denied petitioner’s request for documents relating to the investigation of complaints about the use of school buildings for political purposes.  The complaints concerned a speech given by an employee of the Department of Education (DOE) which criticized the positions on education policy taken by unnamed mayoral candidates.  The speech was put up on the DOE website. Petitioner alleged the speech violated specified Chancellor’s Regulations re: the conduct of school employees with respect political campaigns and elections.  Supreme Court erroneously held that petitioner must show that the denial of the request for documents was “arbitrary and capricious,” “an abuse of discretion,” “irrational,” or “unlawful.”  The proper analysis is whether the determination “was affected by an error of law” and  places the burden on the respondent to show the request falls within one of the statutory exceptions to disclosure.  The First Department reversed Supreme Court, applied the correct analytical criteria and found that any relevant privacy interests did not outweigh the public interest in disclosure:

The appropriate standard of review is whether the determination “was affected by an error of law” (CPLR 7803[3]…). Moreover, the burden is on respondents to establish “that the material requested falls squarely within the ambit of one of the[] statutory exemptions” from disclosure … . Under the circumstances of this case, the application of an improper legal standard is reversible error since it resulted in substantial prejudice to petitioner … .

Respondents failed to establish that disclosure of the materials at issue would “constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy under the provisions of [§ 89(2)]” (Public Officers Law § 87[2][b]). They do not claim that any personal privacy category enumerated in § 89(2) is applicable. Therefore, we must determine whether any invasion of personal privacy would be unwarranted “by balancing the privacy interests at stake against the public interest in disclosure of the information” … . The speech at issue excoriated unspecified candidates in the 2013 mayoral election who had taken certain positions on education policy. Notwithstanding that the speech did not name any individual candidate or political party, the complaints to [the school district]  raised serious questions about the propriety of the speech and its publication on DOE’s website. We find that there is a “significant public interest” in the requested materials, which may shed light on whether this matter was adequately investigated … . Respondents failed to establish that the claimed privacy interests outweigh this public interest … . They assert that the materials contain personally identifying information such as home addresses, dates of birth, and Social Security numbers. However, that information can be redacted and does not provide a basis for withholding entire documents … . . Matter of Thomas v Condon, 2015 NY Slip Op 04237, 1st Dept 5-19-15

 

,

Names of Retired Teachers Not Protected from Disclosure by Public Officers Law 89

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Smith, determined Public Officers Law 89 (7) did not exempt from disclosure the names of retirees who receive benefits from public employees' retirement systems.  The question boiled down to statutory interpretation:

The answer to the question before us — are retirees' names exempt from disclosure? — is plain from the face of the statute. It exempts “the home address . . . of a retiree,” but not the retiree's name. By contrast, it exempts both the name and home address of “a beneficiary of a public employees' retirement system.” A “beneficiary” of a retirement system, as the term is commonly used, is a family member of an employee or retiree who is entitled to benefits after the employee's or retiree's death; it is so used on the website of one of the retirement systems in this case (NYSTRS,”Glossary of Benefit Terms,” at http://www.nystrs.org/main/glossary/html [last visited April 21, 2014]). In some contexts, “beneficiary” might be read more broadly to include a retiree, for retirees do benefit from retirement systems. But “beneficiary” was obviously not used in that sense in this statute, because the statute provides a separate and more limited exemption for a “retiree.” Matter of Empire Ctr for NY State Policy v New York State Teachers' Retirement Sys, 2014 NY Slip Op 03193, CtApp 5-6-14

 

,

Community College Foundation, a Not-for-Profit Corporation, Failed to Utterly Refute the Allegation that It Was a Public Entity Subject to FOIL Requests

After petitioners’ Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) request for documents was denied by the Nassau County Community College Foundation (Foundation), petitioners brought an Article 78 proceeding to compel production. The Foundation is a not-for-profit-corporation formed to support the community college. The Foundation argued that it was not a public agency and therefore was not subject to FOIL requests.  Supreme Court dismissed the petition.  The Second Department reversed, finding that the documents submitted by the Foundation did not utterly refute the allegation that the Foundation had the attributes of a public entity. The Second Department noted that public agencies subject to FOIL include “any state or municipal department, board, bureau, division, commission, committee, public authority, public corporation, council, office or other governmental entity performing a governmental or proprietary function for the state or any one or more municipalities thereof, except the judiciary or the state legislature” … .

FOIL “was enacted to promote open government and public accountability’ and imposes a broad duty on government to make its records available to the public'” … . All “public agencies” are subject to FOIL … . An “agency” is “any state or municipal department, board, bureau, division, commission, committee, public authority, public corporation, council, office or other governmental entity performing a governmental or proprietary function for the state or any one or more municipalities thereof, except the judiciary or the state legislature” … .Matter of Nassau Community Coll. Fedn. of Teachers, Local 3150 v Nassau Community Coll., 2015 NY Slip Op 02972, 2nd Dept 4-8-15

FOIL Request for Police “Intelligence Division” Documents Re: Surveillance of “Middle Eastern, South Asian or Muslim Persons” Properly Denied

The First Department determined the New York City Police Department (NYPD) properly denied a Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) request seeking documents generated by the Intelligence Division of the NYPD which related, in part, to broad categories, such as businesses “frequented” by Middle Eastern, South Asian or Muslim persons.  The court determined the requests were “overbroad,” exempt under the Public Officers Law (law enforcement privilege and danger to  life and safety), and would constitute an invasion of privacy.  With regard to  “danger to life and safety” and “invasion of privacy,” the court wrote:

The court also properly found that the requested disclosure “could endanger the life or safety of any person” (Public Officers Law § 87[2][f]). Granting the broadly worded request for a trove of NYPD Intelligence Division documents replete with sensitive information about the unit’s methods and operations, which could be publicly disseminated and potentially exploited by terrorists, would create “a possibility of endangerment” … . In addition, the court properly recognized that the requested records are exempt from FOIL because disclosure would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy … . Petitioners emphasize the public interest in scrutinizing whether NYPD engaged in improper surveillance or profiling of certain communities, but this is outweighed by the privacy interests at stake given the specific purpose of this counterterrorism police operation. The revelation that a certain person, business, or organization was the subject of counterterrorism-related surveillance would not only have the potential to be embarrassing or offensive, but could also be detrimental to the reputations or livelihoods of such persons or entities. Matter of Asian Am Legal Defense & Educ Fund v New York City Police Department, 2015 NY Slip OP 01559, 1st Dept 2-24-15

 

District Attorney’s Office Did Not Adequately Justify Its Denial of Inmate’s Requests for Color Photographs and Unredacted Documents Re: 18-Year-Old Murder Prosecution

The Second Department determined that the Records Access Officer (RAO) of a district attorney’s office did not adequately justify its failure to comply with petitioner requests for color photographs and unredacted documents related to an 18-year-old murder prosecution against him.  The Second Department explained the relevant law in some depth:

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 to be narrowly construed (see Public Officers Law § 89[5][e], [f]… . This showing requires the entity resisting disclosure 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” … . Because FOIL is “based on a presumption of access to the records” …, “FOIL compels disclosure, not concealment'” wherever the agency fails to demonstrate that a statutory exemption applies … .

In this case, in response to the petitioner’s FOIL requests, the respondent provided the petitioner with certain documents that contained numerous redactions, and denied the petitioner’s request for photographs of the deceased victim. The respondent based the redactions and the denial of the request for the photographs upon the “unwarranted invasion of personal privacy” statutory exemption (Public Officers Law § 87[2][b]). However, since the respondent failed to proffer more than conclusory assertions to support these claims, the Supreme Court erred in determining that the respondent met his burden of demonstrating that the redactions and denial of the request for the photographs of the deceased victim fell within this statutory exemption (see Public Officers Law § 89[5][e], [f];…).

The Supreme Court also erred in determining that the petitioner was not entitled to receive color copies of certain photographs that were disclosed to him. Public Officers Law § 86(4) provides that photographs are records within the meaning of the statute, and section 87(1)(b) of the statute requires an agency to provide copies or reproductions of records. Pursuant to Public Officer Law § 87(1)(c)(ii), an agency may engage an outside professional service to prepare a copy of a record if its information technology equipment is inadequate to prepare a copy. Applying these principles, we find that since the respondent did not claim he was unable to comply with the petitioner’s request, FOIL requires him to provide the petitioner with color copies of all disclosable photographs in his possession. Matter of Baez v Brown, 2015 NY Slip Op 00754, 2nd Dept 1-28-15

 

, , ,

At Least Some of the Information In a Report Prepared for the Town by Outside Counsel May Be Subject to Disclosure Because the Attorney-Client Privilege Was Waived to the Extent the Contents of the Report Were Described at a Public Hearing

The Third Department determined that a report prepared for the town by outside counsel was protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege.  However that privilege may have been waived to the extent the contents of the report were described at a public hearing:

“Under FOIL, an agency need not disclose documents 'specifically exempted from disclosure by state or federal statute,'” such as those protected by attorney-client privilege (…Public Officers Law § 87 [2] [a]; see CPLR 3101 [b], [c]; 4503 [a] [1]…). Petitioners do not, in fact, dispute that the report was privileged when it was prepared. They instead contend that the privilege was waived when the contents of the report were later disclosed at various Town Board meetings. Accordingly, it was incumbent upon respondents to demonstrate that the privilege had not been waived and that the report remained exempt from disclosure … .

…”[A] client who voluntarily testifies to a privileged matter, who publicly discloses such matter or who permits his [or her] attorney to testify regarding the matter is deemed to have impliedly waived the attorney-client privilege” … . In that regard, outside counsel appeared at a … public meeting and made an extensive oral presentation — apparently at the Town Board's behest — in which counsel set forth his legal analysis of the zoning issues involved. To the extent that the oral presentation parrots the analysis set forth in the report, it may well constitute a waiver of the privilege protecting the contents of the report. … Matter of Loudon House LLC v Town of Colonie, 2014 NY Slip OP 09082, 3rd Dept 12-31-14


Documents Explaining Reason for Mail-Watch Order Re: Inmate Exempt from Disclosure Pursuant to Public Officers Law

The Third Department determined the petitioner-inmate was not entitled to documents explaining why a mail-watch order was issued by the Department of Corrections mandating that the petitioner's mail be monitored for two months.  The requested documents were exempt from disclosure as “communications exchanged for discussion purposes not constituting final policy decisions:”

…[T]he withheld document constitutes inter- or intra-agency deliberative material, “i.e., communications exchanged for discussion purposes not constituting final policy decisions” (…see Public Officers Law § 87 [2] [g]…). The withheld document is a mail watch request and consists of “predecisional evaluations, recommendations and conclusions,” and is accordingly exempt from disclosure pursuant to Public Officers Law § 87 (2) (g) … . Matter of Ward v Gonzalez, 2014 NY Slip OP 08931, 3rd Dept 12-24-14

 

Legal Opinions, Software, and a Manual for the Software Properly Withheld

The First Department determined the respondent NYS Division of Human Rights properly withheld certain materials requested pursuant to the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL).  Legal opinions were exempt as “intra-agency materials” and were also exempt because the person who was the subject of the documents did not consent to the release.  In addition, software which was requested was not “information” within the meaning of FOIL:

Respondent properly withheld the four legal opinions requested by petitioner pursuant to the “intra-agency materials” exemption (see Public Officers Law § 89[2][g]), since they are essentially “predecisional memoranda, prepared to assist the agency in its decision-making process and . . . are not final agency determinations or policy” … . Contrary to petitioner’s argument, the opinions do not fall under the exceptions to this exemption for “statistical or factual tabulations or data” (Public Officers Law § 89[2][g][i]) or “instructions to staff that affect the public” (Public Officers Law § 89[2][g][ii]…).

Moreover, three of the four opinions are “specifically exempted from disclosure by state . . . statute” (Public Officers Law § 87[2][a]…) pursuant to Executive Law § 297(8), which prohibits respondent from making public information contained in reports obtained by it with respect to a particular person without his or her consent. …

Respondent properly denied the request for its “Case Management System Legal Resources Notebook,” which does not constitute a record within the meaning of FOIL, since it is not “information” (Public Officers Law § 86[4]) but rather a software application providing the means of accessing information in its electronic file system. It also properly withheld the user’s manual for that application, since its disclosure “would jeopardize [respondent’s] capacity . . . to guarantee the security of its . . . electronic information systems” (Public Officers Law § 87[2][i]).  Matter of Miller v New York State Div of Human Rights, 2014 NY Slip Op 07742, 1st Dept 11-13-14

 

, ,

A Retired Police Officer’s Personnel Records, Including Records of Misconduct, Are Exempt from the Freedom of Information Law

The Third Department noted that records of personnel records of a police officer, including records of misconduct, are exempt from the Freedom of Information Law pursuant to the Civil Rights Law, and the exemption extends to retired police officers:

An agency may properly deny access to records that are specifically exempted from disclosure by state statute (see Public Officers Law § 87 [2] [a]). As is relevant here, Civil Rights Law § 50-a (1) provides that “[a]ll personnel records used to evaluate performance toward continued employment or promotion, under the control of any police agency or department . . .[,] shall be considered confidential and not subject to inspection or review without the express written consent of such police officer . . . except as may be mandated by lawful court order.” Personnel records include documents relating to misconduct or rule violations by police officers … . Thus, if a document relating to an officer’s public employment may be used “in litigation to harass, embarrass, degrade or impeach [that] officer’s integrity,” then it is protected by Civil Rights Law § 50-a … .

Inasmuch as this Court has expressly ruled that a police officer’s personnel records continue to be exempt from disclosure after he or she departs from public service, we disagree with petitioner’s contention that Supreme Court erred by concluding that Civil Rights Law § 50-a applies to the records of [the officer] as a retired police officer … . Whether an officer “is no longer employed by [an agency] has no bearing upon the question of whether the requested records were or were not used by [that agency] to evaluate his [or her] performance” … . Matter of Columbia-Greene Beauty School Inc v City of Albany, 2014 NY Slip Op 07233, 3rd Dept 10-23-14

 

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