Opinion
2013-02-28
In re EMPIRE CENTER FOR NEW YORK STATE POLICY, Petitioner–Appellant, v. TEACHERS' RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF the CITY OF NEW YORK, Respondent–Respondent.
Levine Sullivan Koch & Schulz, LLP, New York (David A. Schulz of counsel), for appellant. Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Elizabeth I. Freedman of counsel), for respondent.
Levine Sullivan Koch & Schulz, LLP, New York (David A. Schulz of counsel), for appellant. Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Elizabeth I. Freedman of counsel), for respondent.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael D. Stallman, J.), entered September 6, 2012, dismissing the petition brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul respondent's determination, dated February 7, 2012, which denied petitioner's request under the Freedom of Information Law for the names of retired members of respondent, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Respondent's determination to withhold the names of retirees of the public retirement system, pursuant to the exemption set forth in Public Officers Law § 89(7) was not affected by an error of law ( see *912Mulgrew v. Board of Educ. of the City School Dist. of the City of N.Y., 87 A.D.3d 506, 928 N.Y.S.2d 701 [1st Dept. 2011],lv. denied18 N.Y.3d 806, 2012 WL 446222 [2012] ). Indeed, the determination is in accord with our interpretation of that exemption in Empire Ctr. for N.Y. State Policy v. New York City Police Pension Fund, 88 A.D.3d 520, 930 N.Y.S.2d 576 [1st Dept. 2011],lv. dismissed 18 N.Y.3d 901, 940 N.Y.S.2d 209, 963 N.E.2d 786 [2012] ), which followed Matter of New York Veteran Police Assn. v. New York City Police Dept. Art. I Pension Fund, 61 N.Y.2d 659, 472 N.Y.S.2d 85, 460 N.E.2d 226 (1983). Accordingly, we adhere to our prior holding under the principle of stare decisis, which applies with particular force to issues of statutory interpretation ( see Matter of Higby v. Mahoney, 48 N.Y.2d 15, 18–19, 421 N.Y.S.2d 35, 396 N.E.2d 183 [1979] ).