Mcgee v. Putnam Cnty. Assistant Dist. Attorney David M. Bishop

21 Citing cases

  1. Aron Law PLLC v. Sullivan Cnty.

    214 A.D.3d 1186 (N.Y. App. Div. 2023)   Cited 9 times
    In Mtr of Aron Law PLLC v. Sullivan County, 214 A.D.3d 1186, 1190 (3rd Dept. 2023), the court held that inter-agency email communications between county employees and the Census Bureau regarding project logistics were exempt and did not fall into any of the enumerated categories of POL § 87 (2) (g) that would negate the exemption.

    Nevertheless, as discussed herein, we find that petitioner's request was properly denied on the actual grounds asserted by respondent. "Under FOIL, all government records are presumptively open for public inspection and copying unless they fall within one of the enumerated exemptions of Public Officer Law § 87(2)" ( Matter of Prisoners’ Legal Serv. of N.Y. v. New York State Dept. of Corr. & Community Supervision, 209 A.D.3d 1208, 1211, 177 N.Y.S.3d 765 [3d Dept. 2022] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; seeMatter of McGee v. Putnam County Assistant Dist. Attorney David M. Bishop , 192 A.D.3d 1446, 1448–1449, 145 N.Y.S.3d 627 [3d Dept. 2021] ). "The agency resisting disclosure under FOIL bears the burden of showing that the responsive document falls squarely within a FOIL exemption by articulating a particularized and specific justification for denying access" ( Matter of Gartner v. New York State Attorney General's Off., 160 A.D.3d 1087, 1090, 75 N.Y.S.3d 102 [3d Dept. 2018] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; seeMatter of Rose v. Albany County Dist. Attorney's Off., 111 A.D.3d 1123, 1125, 975 N.Y.S.2d 258 [3d Dept. 2013] ).

  2. In re Lost Lake Holdings LLC v. Hogue

    2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 5266 (N.Y. App. Div. 2024)   Cited 1 times

    Category 8 sought the names of former Town comprehensive plan committee members with their titles and emails and category 18 sought the same information as category 8 for current members of the Town comprehensive plan committee and board. The FAO stated that respondents do not maintain such information as records and respondents were not required to create responsive records to satisfy petitioner's request (see Matter of McGee v Putnam County Assistant Dist. Attorney David M. Bishop, 192 A.D.3d 1446, 1449 [3d Dept 2021]). Furthermore, the FAO's affidavit submitted during the pendency of this proceeding provided links to the publicly available meeting minutes of the Town Board and planning board since October 28, 2021 as requested in category 10, and petitioner's submissions fail to establish the existence of any minutes that remain outstanding, thus rendering petitioner's request moot

  3. Reclaim the Records v. N.Y. State Dep't of Health

    2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 2854 (N.Y. App. Div. 2024)

    Accordingly, we would find that the records sought here do not fit squarely within an exemption and disclosure is not prohibited (see Matter of Aron Law PLLC v Sullivan County, 214 A.D.3d 1186, 1188 [3d Dept 2023]; Matter of Empire Ch. of the Associated Bldrs. & Contrs., Inc. v New York State Dept. of Transp., 211 A.D.3d 1155, 1157 [3d Dept 2022]). Finally, the "simple manipulation of the computer necessary to transfer existing records should not, if it does not involve significant time or expense, be treated as creation of a new document" (Matter of Data Tree, LLC v Romaine, 9 N.Y.3d 454, 465 [2007]; see Public Officers Law § 89 [3] [a]; Matter of McGee v Putnam County Assistant Dist. Attorney David M. Bishop, 192 A.D.3d 1446, 1450 [3d Dept 2021]). Respondent's Director of the Bureau of Vital Records (hereinafter the Director), specified that respondent maintains "death-related records... in a multitude of formats" and - while ostensibly confirming that it maintains a "database" - averred that the database does not include the additional data that petitioner has requested.

  4. Prisoners' Legal Servs. of N.Y. v. N.Y. State Dep't of Corr. & Cmty. Supervision

    209 A.D.3d 1208 (N.Y. App. Div. 2022)   Cited 7 times

    To be sure, petitioner argues that, because the issue of whether surveillance footage of a facility may be exempt from disclosure under the law enforcement exemption and whether UI reports fall within the inter/intra-agency exemption have not been previously addressed by this Court and are of tantamount importance, the issue may be considered novel and substantial, and that it is likely to reoccur in light of respondent's tendency to rely upon these exemptions to refuse disclosure of video surveillance and UI reports. However, petitioner failed to establish that this issue is one that would typically evade review as these exemptions and their invocation are frequently examined by this Court (seeMatter of Associated Gen. Contrs. of N.Y. State, LLC v. New York State Thruway Auth., 173 A.D.3d 1526, 1527, 105 N.Y.S.3d 573 [3d Dept. 2019] ; see e.g.Matter of Disability Rights N.Y. v. New York State Commn. of Corr., 194 A.D.3d 1230, 1232, 149 N.Y.S.3d 290 [3d Dept. 2021] ; Matter of McGee v. Putnam County Assistant Dist. Attorney David M. Bishop, 192 A.D.3d 1446, 1449–1450, 145 N.Y.S.3d 627 [3d Dept. 2021] ).

  5. Thomas v. Kane

    203 A.D.3d 1487 (N.Y. App. Div. 2022)   Cited 4 times

    However, the statute commands that a government entity that does not supply any record in response to a FOIL request "shall certify that it does not have possession of such record or that such record cannot be found after diligent search" ( Public Officers Law § 89[3][a] ; see 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 [2001] ). Although "[t]he 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 at 875, 730 N.Y.S.2d 768, 756 N.E.2d 56 ; accordMatter of McGee v. Putnam County Assistant Dist. Attorney David M. Bishop, 192 A.D.3d 1446, 1449, 145 N.Y.S.3d 627 [2021] ), respondent failed to provide any such certification (see Matter of De Fabritis v. McMahon, 301 A.D.2d 892, 894, 754 N.Y.S.2d 117 [2003] ; see also Matter of Baez v. Brown, 124 A.D.3d 881, 884, 1 N.Y.S.3d 376 [2015], lv dismissed 26 N.Y.3d 981, 18 N.Y.S.3d 594, 40 N.E.3d 571 [2015] ; compareMatter of Empire Ctr. for Pub. Policy v. New York State Energy & Research Dev. Auth., 188 A.D.3d 1556, 1558, 137 N.Y.S.3d 540 [2020] ; Matter of Kindred v. City of Albany Off. of the City Clerk, 97 A.D.3d 1043, 1044, 948 N.Y.S.2d 776 [2012], lv denied 20 N.Y.3d 855, 2013 WL 69116 [2013] ; Matter of Oddone v. Suffolk County Police Dept., 96 A.D.3d 758, 761, 946 N.Y.S.2d 580 [2012] ).

  6. Cohen v. Alois

    201 A.D.3d 1104 (N.Y. App. Div. 2022)   Cited 13 times

    Respondents also argue that this Court should vacate the award of counsel fees and litigation costs. A court is required to award the petitioner reasonable counsel fees and other litigation costs reasonably incurred where the petitioner has substantially prevailed and the court finds that the agency had no reasonable basis for denying access (see Public Officers Law § 89[4][c][ii] ). "A petitioner substantially prevails under Public Officers Law § 89(4)(c) when [he or she] receives all the information that [he or she] requested and to which [he or she] was entitled in response to the underlying FOIL litigation" ( Matter of McGee v. Putnam County Assistant Dist. Attorney David M. Bishop, 192 A.D.3d 1446, 1452, 145 N.Y.S.3d 627 [2021] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; seeMatter of 101CO, LLC v. New York State Dept. of Envtl. Conservation, 169 A.D.3d 1307, 1311, 95 N.Y.S.3d 404 [2019], lv dismissed 34 N.Y.3d 1010, 115 N.Y.S.3d 206, 138 N.E.3d 1089 [2019] ). "A pertinent consideration in determining whether an agency had a reasonable basis for denying a FOIL request is whether the agency reasonably claimed the records were exempt from disclosure under Public Officers Law § 87(2)" ( Matter of Competitive Enter. Inst. v. Attorney Gen. of N.Y., 161 A.D.3d 1283, 1285, 76 N.Y.S.3d 640 [2018] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; seeMatter of New York State Defenders Assn. v. New York State Police, 87 A.D.3d 193, 195, 927 N.Y.S.2d 423 [2011] ). Since Supreme Court properly rejected the stated exemption and petitioner was ultimately granted disclosure of all of the documents he sought, it is evident that petitioner substantially prevailed (seeLegal Aid Socy. v. New York State Dept. of Cor

  7. Meleshkov v. Sulyma

    2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 51693 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2024)

    A trial court possesses the right to enforce the rules governing practice and procedure before it (e.g. Anuchina v Marine Transp. Logistics, Inc., 216 A.D.3d 1126 [2d Dept 2023] [motion relating to disclosure must be accompanied by moving counsel's affirmation attesting to having conferred with opposing counsel in good faith effort to resolve issues]; McGee v Putnam County Assistant Dist. Attorney David M. Bishop, 192 A.D.3d 1446 [3d Dept 2021] [memorandum of law page limit]; Hornsby v Cathedral Parkway Apts. Corp., 179 A.D.3d 584 [1st Dept 2020] [affirmation page limit]; Basie v Wiggs, 173 A.D.3d 1127 [2d Dept 2019] [Matrimonial Part rules]; Appleyard v Tigges, 171 A.D.3d 534 [1st Dept 2019] [60-day summary judgment motion deadline]; Shah v RBC Capital Mkts. LLC, 115 A.D.3d 444 [1st Dept 2014] [all outstanding discovery matters to be raised at compliance conferences]; Biscone v Jetblue Airways Corp., 103 A.D.3d 158 [2d Dept 2012] [provide working copies of electronically-filed documents]; Maddus v Bowman, 12 A.D.2d 626 [2d Dept 1960] [Statement of Readiness Rule requiring plaintiff to furnish authorization to obtain hospital records]; Thompson v Doe, 83 Misc.3d 1246 [A], 2024 NY Slip Op 50930[U] [Sup Ct, Kings County 2024] [adjournment stipulation late and not conforming to rule's content requirements; submission of referenced electronically-filed documents without being submitted as exhibit

  8. Jackson v. 965 Greene Holding Corp.

    2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 51600 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2024)

    ct an insufficiently detailed excuse for not filing opposition papers timely (e.g. Laurent v Belony, 193 A.D.3d 712 [2d Dept 2021] [plaintiffs' undetailed and conclusory explanation of their expert's delay in providing an expert affidavit necessary to oppose the defendants' motion]; Harrison v Toyloy, 174 A.D.3d 579 [2d Dept 2019] [plaintiff's attorney failed to identify the expert by name and did not provide any details concerning purported "reasonable efforts" to contact the expert]; Kisiletskiy v Pena, 153 A.D.3d 800 [2d Dept 2017] [motion made March 26, 2012, court denied unopposed motion on Aug. 10, 2012]). A trial court possesses the right to enforce the rules governing practice and procedure before it (e.g. Anuchina v Marine Transp. Logistics, Inc., 216 A.D.3d 1126 [2d Dept 2023] [motion relating to disclosure must be accompanied by moving counsel's affirmation attesting to having conferred with opposing counsel in good faith effort to resolve issues]; McGee v Putnam County Assistant Dist. Attorney David M. Bishop, 192 A.D.3d 1446 [3d Dept 2021] [memorandum of law page limit]; Hornsby v Cathedral Parkway Apts. Corp., 179 A.D.3d 584 [1st Dept 2020] [affirmation page limit]; Basie v Wiggs, 173 A.D.3d 1127 [2d Dept 2019] [Matrimonial Part rules]; Appleyard v Tigges, 171 A.D.3d 534 [1st Dept 2019] [60-day summary judgment motion deadline]; Shah v RBC Capital Mkts. LLC, 115 A.D.3d 444 [1st Dept 2014] [all outstanding discovery matters to be raised at compliance conferences]; Biscone v Jetblue Airways Corp., 103 A.D.3d 158 [2d Dept 2012] [provide working copies of electronically-filed documents]; Maddus v Bowman, 12 A.D.2d 626 [2d Dept 1960] [Statement of Readiness Rule requiring plaintiff to furnish authorization to obtain hospital records]; Shmerelzon v Gravesend Mgt., Inc., 80 Misc.3d 1233[A], 2023 NY Slip Op 51155[U] [Sup Ct, Kings County 2023] [adjournment requests must contain specified data and be submitted three days in advance]; Wade v Khadka, 80 Misc.3d 1222 [A], 2023 NY Slip Op 51058[U] [

  9. Vecchio v. N.Y. State Dep't of Motor Vehicles

    2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 34596 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2024)

    ; McGee y Bishop, 192 A.D.3d 1446, 1452 [3rd Dept. 2021] [holding that petitioner did not substantially prevail where the agency "did not-until ordered by the Supreme Court-properly certify that no responsive records could be located after a diligent search" but no further responsive records existed and "petitioner did not complain about the lack of formal certification"]).

  10. Criollo v. 719 Henry, LLC

    2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 51398 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2024)

    Finally, the Court determines that its rule prohibiting improper ex parte communications and prohibition of inquiries in the nature of "How should I proceed since I missed the calendar call and my motion was marked off?" is valid and enforceable. A trial court possesses the right to enforce the rules governing practice and procedure before it (e.g. Anuchina v Marine Transp. Logistics, Inc., 216 A.D.3d 1126 [2d Dept 2023] [motion relating to disclosure must be accompanied by moving counsel's affirmation attesting to having conferred with opposing counsel in good faith effort to resolve issues]; McGee v Putnam County Assistant Dist. Attorney David M. Bishop, 192 A.D.3d 1446 [3d Dept 2021] [memorandum of law page limit]; Hornsby v Cathedral Parkway Apts. Corp., 179 A.D.3d 584 [1st Dept 2020] [affirmation page limit]; Basie v Wiggs, 173 A.D.3d 1127 [2d Dept 2019] [Matrimonial Part rules]; Appleyard v Tigges, 171 A.D.3d 534 [1st Dept 2019] [60-day summary judgment motion deadline]; Shah v RBC Capital Mkts. LLC, 115 A.D.3d 444 [1st Dept 2014] [all outstanding discovery matters to be raised at compliance conferences]; Biscone v Jetblue Airways Corp., 103 A.D.3d 158 [2d Dept 2012] [provide working copies of electronically-filed documents]; Maddus v Bowman, 12 A.D.2d 626 [2d Dept 1960] [Statement of Readiness Rule requiring plaintiff to furnish authorization to obtain hospital records]; Shmerelzon v Gravesend Mgt., Inc., 80 Misc.3d 1233 [A], 2023 NY Slip Op 51155[U] [Sup Ct, Kings County 2023] [adjournment requests must contain specified data and be submitted three days in advance]; Wade v Khadka, 80 Misc.3d 1222 [A], 2023 NY Slip Op 51058[U]