Opinion
2014-04-22
In re Lamonte JOHNSON, Petitioner–Appellant, v. Raymond W. KELLY, etc., et al., Respondents–Respondents.
Lamonte Johnson, appellant pro se. Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Hanh H. Le of counsel), for respondents.
Lamonte Johnson, appellant pro se. Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Hanh H. Le of counsel), for respondents.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Donna Mills, J.), entered on or about February 7, 2012, denying the petition brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, seeking to compel respondents to disclose records pertaining to petitioner's criminal prosecution pursuant to the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL), and dismissing the proceeding, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The court properly dismissed the petition as against respondent Police Commissioner Kelly as time-barred. The petition was brought in July 2011, more than four months after the December 2010 denial of petitioner's FOIL request (CPLR 217[1] ). The parties' subsequent correspondence regarding the same request “ ‘did not extend or toll his time to commence an article 78 proceeding’ ” (Matter of Andrade v. New York City Police Dept., 106 A.D.3d 520, 521, 965 N.Y.S.2d 450 [1st Dept.2013], quoting Matter of Kelly v. New York City Police Dept., 286 A.D.2d 581, 581, 730 N.Y.S.2d 84 [1st Dept.2001] ).
The court properly found that the records petitioner requested from respondent Chief Medical Examiner, pertaining to petitioner's conviction of two counts of second-degree murder ( People v. Johnson, 170 A.D.2d 535, 566 N.Y.S.2d 538 [2d Dept.1991],lv. denied 77 N.Y.2d 996, 571 N.Y.S.2d 922, 575 N.E.2d 408 [1991] ), are exempt from disclosure under New York City Charter § 557(g) ( seePublic Officers Law § 87(2)(a); see also Matter of Robles v. Hirsch, 19 A.D.3d 132, 795 N.Y.S.2d 450 [1st Dept.2005],appeal dismissed5 N.Y.3d 823, 804 N.Y.S.2d 36, 837 N.E.2d 735 [2005];Matter of Mitchell v. Borakove, 225 A.D.2d 435, 639 N.Y.S.2d 791 [1st Dept.1996],appeal dismissed 88 N.Y.2d 919, 646 N.Y.S.2d 987, 670 N.E.2d 228 [1996] ). We reject petitioner's constitutional challenge to the Charter provision on the ground that it restricts the disclosure of public records to a greater extent than in other parts of New York State ( see Matter of Lovacco v. Hirsch, 250 A.D.2d 416, 672 N.Y.S.2d 697 [1998],lv. denied92 N.Y.2d 810, 680 N.Y.S.2d 54, 702 N.E.2d 839 [1998], citing Gardner v. Michigan, 199 U.S. 325, 334, 26 S.Ct. 106, 50 L.Ed. 212 [1905] ).
We have considered petitioner's remaining arguments and find them unavailing. TOM, J.P., RENWICK, RICHTER, FEINMAN, GISCHE, JJ., concur.