Opinion
5927 Index 101759/16
03-08-2018
In re FREE MARKET ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CLINIC, et al., Petitioners–Appellants, v. The ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW YORK, Respondent–Respondent.
Law Office of Francis Menton, New York (Francis Menton of counsel), for appellants. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York (Linda Fang of counsel), for respondent.
Law Office of Francis Menton, New York (Francis Menton of counsel), for appellants.
Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York (Linda Fang of counsel), for respondent.
Renwick, J.P., Richter, Andrias, Kapnick, Kahn, JJ.
Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Manuel J. Mendez, J.), entered May 22, 2017, denying the petition to, inter alia, compel respondent, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Law, to produce all records pertaining to a February 2015 meeting between respondent and representatives of nonparty Eco–Accountability and October and November 2015 meetings between respondent and representatives of nonparty Fahr LLC, and dismissing the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Respondent met its burden of showing that the records withheld were compiled for law-enforcement purposes (see Matter of Lesher v. Hynes, 19 N.Y.3d 57, 67, 945 N.Y.S.2d 214, 968 N.E.2d 451 [2012] ; Matter of Loevy & Loevy v. New York City Police Dept., 139 A.D.3d 598, 599, 33 N.Y.S.3d 185 [1st Dept. 2016] ; Public Officers Law § 87[2][e][I] ). Given respondent's broad investigatory powers (see People v. Grasso, 54 A.D.3d 180, 204, 861 N.Y.S.2d 627 [1st Dept. 2008] ), we decline to question to what extent, if any, respondent's decision to initiate the investigation to which the subject meetings were related was motivated by political considerations (see People v. Bunge Corp., 25 N.Y.2d 91, 97–98, 302 N.Y.S.2d 785, 250 N.E.2d 204 [1969] ; Salnikova v. Cuomo, 93 A.D.3d 445, 938 N.Y.S.2d 897 [1st Dept. 2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 813, 2012 WL 4074321 [2012] ).
Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in declining to consider petitioners' postargument submissions (see e.g. Foitl v. G.A.F. Corp., 64 N.Y.2d 911, 913, 488 N.Y.S.2d 377, 477 N.E.2d 618 [1985] ).
In view of the foregoing, we need not consider whether some of the documents were also exempt from production as intra-agency materials ( Public Officers Law § 87[2][g] ).