From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Collins v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jun 4, 1998
251 A.D.2d 738 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

June 4, 1998

Appeal from the Supreme Court (Bradley, J.).


Petitioner, an inmate at Greenhaven Correctional Facility in Dutchess County, commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding, inter alia, to compel respondents to comply with his request under the Freedom of Information Law (Public Officers Law art 6) (hereinafter FOIL) to furnish all information and records pertaining to another individual's parole records. Supreme Court dismissed the petition on the ground that the requested documents were exempt from disclosure because, inter alia, parole records are confidential and release thereof would constitute an invasion of privacy. This appeal ensued.

It is well settled that agency records are presumptively open to the public unless otherwise specifically exempted ( see, Matter of Mingo v. New York State Div. of Parole, 244 A.D.2d 781, 782). Here, we find that the information sought by petitioner is exempt from disclosure on the ground that it is confidential and if released, would warrant an invasion of privacy. While not specifically establishing a FOIL exemption, Executive Law § 259-k Exec. provides a clear legislative intent to establish and maintain the confidentiality of parole records ( see, e.g., Matter of Kline Sons v. County of Hamilton, 235 A.D.2d 44, 46). To that end, the Parole Board has promulgated rules prohibiting the release of the information sought by petitioner ( see, 9 NYCRR 8000.5 [a]; [d] [2] [i] [a]; [ii]). Given that Executive Law § 259-k Exec. directs that parole case record information be confidential, we conclude that the information and documents requested by petitioner are not subject to disclosure under FOIL, even if certain information was redacted ( see, Public Officers Law § 87 [a], [b]; see also, Matter of Zuckerman v. New York State Bd. of Parole, 53 A.D.2d 405, 407; Jordan v. Loos, 204 Misc. 814, 818, affd 283 App. Div. 983). We have reviewed petitioner's remaining contentions and have found them to be unpersuasive.

Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, White, Peters and Spain, JJ., concur.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.


Summaries of

Matter of Collins v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jun 4, 1998
251 A.D.2d 738 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

Matter of Collins v. State

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of JABBAR COLLINS, Appellant, v. NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

Date published: Jun 4, 1998

Citations

251 A.D.2d 738 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
674 N.Y.S.2d 145

Citing Cases

Whitfield v. Bailey

Id., at 275. At the same time, however, the courts have denied FOIL requests by inmates seeking access to the…

Whitfield v. Bailey

Finally, although in the original decision the court relied on the cases cited by respondent in opposition,…