Opinion
February 18, 1986
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Winick, J.).
Judgment entered October 4, 1984, affirmed insofar as appealed from.
Appeal from the order dated December 17, 1984 dismissed. That order is not appealable as of right.
Respondent is awarded one bill of costs.
FOIL was enacted to promote the people's right to know the process of governmental decision-making and it is to be liberally construed to grant maximum public access to governmental records (Matter of Washington Post Co. v. New York State Ins. Dept., 61 N.Y.2d 557). Where an exemption from FOIL is claimed, the burden is on the governmental agency to establish that the material requested falls within the ambit of Public Officers Law § 87 (2) (see, Matter of Farbman Sons v. New York City Health Hosps. Corp., 62 N.Y.2d 75). As the status of one asking for documents is not relevant, the fact that petitioner was in litigation with the Village of Roslyn will not affect the propriety of the FOIL request (see, Matter of Farbman Sons v. New York City Health Hosps. Corp., supra). Appellants have failed to show that the records requested by petitioner were previously produced; thus any claim of harassment cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the Supreme Court was correct in ordering that the appellants produce the material requested.
Lastly, the order dated December 17, 1984, directing a judicial hearing to aid in the disposition of a motion is not appealable as of right (see, Astuto v. New York Univ. Med. Center, 97 A.D.2d 805; Bagdy v. Progresso Foods Corp., 86 A.D.2d 589 ). We decline to grant leave. Mollen, P.J., Lawrence, Eiber and Kooper, JJ., concur.