Madden v. Vill. of Tuxedo Park

18 Citing cases

  1. Meyer v. Nassau Cnty. Police Dep't

    2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 660 (N.Y. App. Div. 2025)

    Since the petition was denied based on the petitioner's purported failure to exhaust his administrative remedies, we remit this matter to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for a determination of the petition on the merits, including as to the petitioner's entitlement to attorneys' fees and litigation costs (see Matter of Law Offs. of Cory H. Morris v Suffolk County, 221 A.D.3d 900, 902; Matter of Veteri v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of the Town of Kent, 202 A.D.3d 975, 980; Matter of Madden v Village of Tuxedo Park, 192 A.D.3d 802, 805).

  2. Newsday, LLC v. Manhasset Union Free Sch. Dist.

    2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 5560 (N.Y. App. Div. 2024)

    Public Officers Law § 89(4)(a) provides, in pertinent part, that "any person denied access to a record may within thirty days appeal in writing such denial to the head, chief executive or governing body of the entity." "[A]ny administrative appeal of a denial, as required for exhausting administrative remedies, [must] be undertaken within 30 days of the denial" (Matter of Madden v Village of Tuxedo Park, 192 A.D.3d 802, 805). Failure to exhaust administrative remedies precludes relief under CPLR article 78 (see Matter of Bradhurst Site Constr. Corp. v Zoning Bd. of Appeals, Town of Mount Pleasant, 128 A.D.3d 817, 818).

  3. Silverman v. Town of Ramapo

    222 A.D.3d 652 (N.Y. App. Div. 2023)   Cited 3 times

    On a motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) and 7804(f) to dismiss a petition, all of its allegations are deemed true, and the petitioner is accorded the benefit of every possible inference (seeMatter of Le Golgotha Lodge, Inc. v. Tax Commn. of the City of N.Y., 196 A.D.3d 581, 582–583, 147 N.Y.S.3d 434 ; Matter of Levy v. SUNY Stony Brook, 185 A.D.3d 689, 690, 127 N.Y.S.3d 504 ; Matter of Tyson v. Town of Ramapo, 165 A.D.3d 805, 806, 85 N.Y.S.3d 569 ). On a motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), " ‘[c]ourts may consider extrinsic evidence outside of the pleading's four corners to help determine whether the pleading party has a cause of action, as distinguished from whether the pleading simply states a cause of action’ " ( Matter of Riverkeeper, Inc. v. New York City Dept. of Envtl. Protection, 214 A.D.3d 986, 987, 184 N.Y.S.3d 620, quoting Matter of Madden v. Village of Tuxedo Park, 192 A.D.3d 802, 804, 144 N.Y.S.3d 220 ).

  4. Morris v. Suffolk Cnty.

    221 A.D.3d 900 (N.Y. App. Div. 2023)   Cited 3 times

    The petitioner's standing was not extinguished by the fact that its client also would have had standing to commence a proceeding challenging the denial of the FOIL request (see Matter of Norton v. Town of Islip, 17 A.D.3d at 470, 793 N.Y.S.2d 133 ). Since the petition was denied based on the petitioner's purported lack of standing, we remit this matter to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for a determination of the petition on the merits (seeMatter of Veteri v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of the Town of Kent, 202 A.D.3d at 979–980, 163 N.Y.S.3d 231 ; Matter of Madden v. Village of Tuxedo Park, 192 A.D.3d 802, 805, 144 N.Y.S.3d 220 ), including, inter alia, whether the respondents set forth a factual predicate for their contention that certain portions of the FOIL request related solely to the Agency's adjudicatory functions (seeMatter of Law Offs. of Cory H. Morris v. Suffolk County, 216 A.D.3d 638, 641, 188 N.Y.S.3d 151 ; Matter of Law Offs. of Cory H.Morris v. County of Nassau, 158 A.D.3d 630, 632, 72 N.Y.S.3d 95 ). LASALLE, P.J., CONNOLLY, CHAMBERS and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.

  5. Goldstein v. Inc. Vill. of Mamaroneck

    221 A.D.3d 111 (N.Y. App. Div. 2023)   Cited 10 times

    Moreover, no evidence was submitted regarding the costs of such endeavors, including the cost of employee time or of engaging an outside professional service, if necessary, and whether the petitioner would be willing to bear those costs (seeMatter of Jewish Press, Inc. v. New York City Dept. of Educ., 183 A.D.3d at 733, 122 N.Y.S.3d 679 ; Matter of County of Suffolk v. Long Is. Power Auth., 119 A.D.3d at 942–943, 989 N.Y.S.2d 888 ; see also Matter of Puig v. New York State Police, 212 A.D.3d at 1027, 181 N.Y.S.3d 759 ; Matter of New York Comm. for Occupational Safety & Health v. Bloomberg, 72 A.D.3d at 161–162, 892 N.Y.S.2d 377 ). While the petitioner additionally faulted the Village for not providing whatever information it might have compiled by emailing board members and asking for information as to their recusals and disclosures, "an agency responding to a FOIL request is not required to create any new record or data that is not already possessed and maintained by it as such" (Matter of Madden v. Village of Tuxedo Park, 192 A.D.3d 802, 804, 144 N.Y.S.3d 220 ; see Public Officers Law § 89[3][a] ; Matter of Data Tree, LLC v. Romaine, 9 N.Y.3d at 464–465, 849 N.Y.S.2d 489, 880 N.E.2d 10 ). Thus, while the Village might have endeavored to create such a new record, it is not obligated to provide any such newly created data to the petitioner.

  6. Felici v. Nassau Cnty. office of Consumer Affairs

    217 A.D.3d 765 (N.Y. App. Div. 2023)   Cited 2 times

    "The statute does not specify the manner in which an agency must certify that documents cannot be located" ( Matter of Rattley v. New York City Police Dept., 96 N.Y.2d 873, 875, 730 N.Y.S.2d 768, 756 N.E.2d 56 ). In addition, "[a]s a general rule, an agency responding to a FOIL request is not required to create any new record or data that is not already possessed and maintained by it as such" ( Matter of Madden v. Village of Tuxedo Park, 192 A.D.3d 802, 804, 144 N.Y.S.3d 220 ; see Public Officers Law § 89[3][a] ).

  7. 22-50 Jackson Ave. Assocs. v. Cnty. of Suffolk

    216 A.D.3d 943 (N.Y. App. Div. 2023)   Cited 4 times

    The court must "accept the facts as alleged in the complaint as true, accord plaintiffs the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory" ( Leon v. Martinez, 84 N.Y.2d at 87–88, 614 N.Y.S.2d 972, 638 N.E.2d 511 ). Similarly, on a pre-answer motion pursuant to CPLR 7804(f) to dismiss a petition upon objections in point of law, the court must accept as true all allegations contained in the petition and afford the petitioner the benefit of all favorable inferences (see Matter of Madden v. Village of Tuxedo Park, 192 A.D.3d 802, 804, 144 N.Y.S.3d 220 ; Matter of 1300 Franklin Ave. Members, LLC v. Board of Trustees of Inc. Vil. of Garden City, 62 A.D.3d 1004, 1006, 880 N.Y.S.2d 133 ). "However, allegations consisting of bare legal conclusions as well as factual claims flatly contradicted by documentary evidence are not entitled to any such consideration" ( Maas v. Cornell Univ., 94 N.Y.2d 87, 91, 699 N.Y.S.2d 716, 721 N.E.2d 966 [internal quotation marks omitted]; seeMyers v. Schneiderman, 30 N.Y.3d 1, 11, 62 N.Y.S.3d 838, 85 N.E.3d 57 ).

  8. 22-50 Jackson Ave. Assocs. v. Cnty. of Suffolk

    216 A.D.3d 939 (N.Y. App. Div. 2023)   Cited 5 times

    The court must "accept the facts as alleged in the complaint as true, accord plaintiffs the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory" ( Leon v. Martinez, 84 N.Y.2d at 87–88, 614 N.Y.S.2d 972, 638 N.E.2d 511 ). Similarly, on a pre-answer motion pursuant to CPLR 7804(f) to dismiss a petition upon objections in point of law, the court must accept as true all allegations contained in the petition and afford the petitioner the benefit of all favorable inferences (see Matter of Madden v. Village of Tuxedo Park, 192 A.D.3d 802, 804, 144 N.Y.S.3d 220 ; Matter of 1300 Franklin Ave. Members, LLC v. Board of Trustees of Inc. Vil. of Garden City, 62 A.D.3d 1004, 1006, 880 N.Y.S.2d 133 ). "However, allegations consisting of bare legal conclusions as well as factual claims flatly contradicted by documentary evidence are not entitled to any such consideration" ( Maas v. Cornell Univ., 94 N.Y.2d 87, 91, 699 N.Y.S.2d 716, 721 N.E.2d 966 [internal quotation marks omitted]; seeMyers v. Schneiderman, 30 N.Y.3d 1, 11, 62 N.Y.S.3d 838, 85 N.E.3d 57 ).

  9. Law Offices of Morris v. Suffolk Cnty.

    216 A.D.3d 638 (N.Y. App. Div. 2023)   Cited 3 times

    " (Matter of Madden v Village of Tuxedo Park, 192 A.D.3d 802, 805).

  10. Riverkeeper, Inc. v. N.Y.C. Dep't of Envtl. Prot.

    2023 N.Y. Slip Op. 1679 (N.Y. App. Div. 2023)   Cited 1 times

    "On a motion pursuant to CPLR 7804(f) to dismiss a petition, only the petition is to be considered, all of its allegations are to be deemed true, and the petitioner is to be accorded the benefit of every possible inference" (Matter of Golden Horizon Terryville Corp. v Prusinowski, 63 A.D.3d 930, 934; see Matter of 10 E. Realty, LLC v Incorporated Vil. of Val. Stream, 17 A.D.3d 472, 473; see also Matter of Irfan v Vullo, 168 A.D.3d 733, 734; Matter of Fanizzi v Planning Bd. of Patterson, 146 A.D.3d 98, 107). On a motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), "[c]ourts may consider extrinsic evidence outside of the pleading's four corners to help determine whether the pleading party has a cause of action, as distinguished from whether the pleading simply states a cause of action" (Matter of Madden v Village of Tuxedo Park, 192 A.D.3d 802, 804). However, affidavits submitted by a movant "will almost never warrant dismissal under CPLR 3211 unless they establish conclusively that [petitioner] has no [claim or] cause of action" (Lawrence v Graubard Miller, 11 N.Y.3d 588, 595 [emphasis and internal quotation marks omitted]; see Bianco v Law Offs. of Yuri Prakhin, 189 A.D.3d 1326, 1328).