Getting the Word Out, Inc. v. N.Y. State Olympic Reg'l Dev. Auth.

4 Citing cases

  1. Reclaim the Records v. N.Y. State Dep't of Health

    2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 2854 (N.Y. App. Div. 2024)

    It is well settled that the Freedom of Information Law (see Public Officers Law art 6 [hereinafter FOIL]) "is liberally construed and its exemptions narrowly interpreted to achieve its legislative purpose of maximizing public access to government records" (Matter of Appellate Advocates v New York State Dept. of Corr. & Community Supervision, 40 N.Y.3d 547, 551 [2023] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]). For this reason, the agency "carries the burden of demonstrating that the requested material falls squarely within a FOIL exemption by articulating a particularized and specific justification for denying access" (Matter of Capital Newspapers Div. of Hearst Corp. v Burns, 67 N.Y.2d 562, 566 [1986]; accord Matter of Hearst Corp. v New York State Police, 109 A.D.3d 32, 34 [3d Dept 2013]; see Matter of Getting the Word Out, Inc. v New York State Olympic Regional Dev. Auth., 214 A.D.3d 1158, 1159 [3d Dept 2023]). As we believe respondent has failed to satisfy this high burden, we respectfully dissent.

  2. Lost Lake Holdings LLC v. Hogue

    2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 5265 (N.Y. App. Div. 2024)

    public inspection and copying unless one of the statutory exemptions applies, permitting the agency to withhold the records" (Matter of Getting the Word Out, Inc. v New York State Olympic Regional Dev. Auth., 214 A.D.3d 1158, 1159 [3d Dept 2023] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]). Accordingly, a government agency "seeking to prevent disclosure bears the burden of demonstrating that the requested materials fall squarely within a FOIL exemption by articulating a particularized justification for denying access" (Matter of Whitfield v FOIL Appeals Officer, Dept. of Corr. & Community Supervision, 221 A.D.3d 1341, 1343 [3d Dept 2023] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]). Said differently, the "blanket invocation of... statutory exemptions, without enumerating or describing any of the documents withheld and without offering a specific basis for any of the claims of exemption," is insufficient to ward off disclosure under FOIL (Matter of City of Newark v Law Dept. of City of N.Y., 305 A.D.2d 28, 34 [1st Dept 2003]; see Matter of Cohen v Alois, 201 A.D.3d 1104, 1105 [3d Dept 2022]).

  3. N.Y. Civil Liberties Union v. N.Y. State Police

    2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 3369 (N.Y. App. Div. 2024)

    "It is well settled that FOIL imposes a broad duty of disclosure on government agencies and all agency records are presumptively available for public inspection and copying unless one of the statutory exemptions applies, permitting the agency to withhold the records" (Matter of Getting the Word Out, Inc. v New York State Olympic Regional Dev. Auth., 214 A.D.3d 1158, 1159 [3d Dept. 2023] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; accord Matter of New York State Corr. Officers & Police Benevolent Assn., Inc. v New York State Dept. of Corr. & Community Supervision, 224 A.D.3d 974, 975 [3d Dept 2024]; see Matter of Appellate Advocates v New York State Dept. of Corr. & Community Supervision, 40 N.Y.3d 547, 551 [2023]). As relevant here, "[t]he repeal of Civil Rights Law § 50-a reflect[s] a strong legislative policy promoting transparency of police disciplinary records and eliminat[ing] any claim of confidentiality in them" (Matter of NYP Holdings, Inc. v New York City Police Dept., 220 A.D.3d 487, 488 [1st Dept 2023] [internal quotation marks, ellipsis and citation omitted], lv granted 41 N.Y.3d 988 [2024]).

  4. N.Y. State Corr. Officers & Police Benevolent Ass'n v. N.Y. State Dep't of Corr. & Cmty. Supervisio

    2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 482 (N.Y. App. Div. 2024)

    Respondent submitted the responsive audio recordings and underlying misbehavior report to Supreme Court and this Court in camera. "It is well settled that FOIL imposes a broad duty of disclosure on government agencies and all agency records are presumptively available for public inspection and copying unless one of the statutory exemptions applies, permitting the agency to withhold the records" (Matter of Getting the Word Out, Inc. v New York State Olympic Regional Dev. Auth., 214 A.D.3d 1158, 1159 [3d Dept 2023] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]). Such exemptions under Public Officers Law § 87 (2) are "interpreted narrowly in order to effect the purpose of the statutory scheme" (Matter of Cohen v Alois, 201 A.D.3d 1104, 1105 [3d Dept 2022] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]), and, therefore, "the burden rests on the agency seeking to prevent disclos[ure] to demonstrate that the requested materials fall squarely within a FOIL exemption by articulating a particularized justification for denying access" (Matter of Tatko v Village of Granville, 207 A.D.3d 975, 977 [3d Dept 2022] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; Matter of McFadden v Fonda, 148 A.D.3d 1430, 1432 [3d Dept 2017]).