From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Barrett v. Morgenthau

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Nov 16, 1989
74 N.Y.2d 907 (N.Y. 1989)

Summary

holding that a dismissal of the Article 78 proceeding is unwarranted because the agency failed to establish that they had notified petitioner of the availability of an administrative appeal

Summary of this case from Williams v. Vance

Opinion

Argued October 18, 1989

Decided November 16, 1989

Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, Karla Moskowitz, J.

Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney (Morrie I. Kleinbart and Marc Frazier Scholl of counsel), appellants pro se. Robert Selcov, Deborah Schneer and David C. Leven for respondent.


MEMORANDUM.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner commenced this article 78 proceeding to compel production of certain documents after his Freedom of Information Law request, initially directed to the District Attorney, was denied in a letter signed by the District Attorney's records access officer. Inasmuch as the District Attorney failed to advise petitioner of the availability of an administrative appeal in the office (see, 21 N.Y.CRR 1401.7 [b]) and failed to demonstrate in this proceeding that procedures for such an appeal had, in fact, even been established (see, Public Officers Law § 87 [b]), he cannot be heard to complain that petitioner failed to exhaust his administrative remedies.

Chief Judge WACHTLER and Judges SIMONS, KAYE, ALEXANDER, TITONE, HANCOCK, JR., and BELLACOSA concur.

Order affirmed, without costs, in a memorandum.


Summaries of

Matter of Barrett v. Morgenthau

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Nov 16, 1989
74 N.Y.2d 907 (N.Y. 1989)

holding that a dismissal of the Article 78 proceeding is unwarranted because the agency failed to establish that they had notified petitioner of the availability of an administrative appeal

Summary of this case from Williams v. Vance

holding that where respondent failed to advise petitioner of the availability of an administrative appeal in the office and failed to demonstrate that there were procedures for appealing, it could not complain that the petitioner failed to exhaust his administrative remedies

Summary of this case from Mosley v. N.Y. City Landmarks Preserv. Commission
Case details for

Matter of Barrett v. Morgenthau

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of MICHAEL BARRETT, Respondent, v. ROBERT M. MORGENTHAU, as…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Nov 16, 1989

Citations

74 N.Y.2d 907 (N.Y. 1989)
549 N.Y.S.2d 649
548 N.E.2d 1300

Citing Cases

Williams v. Vance

There exists, however, certain exceptions in which a petitioner can bypass the available administrative…

Matter of Pennington v. Clark

Respondents' failure to respond to petitioner's initial letter request within five business days is deemed a…