N.Y. Times Co. v. City of New York

10 Citing cases

  1. N.Y. Civil Liberties Union v. City of Syracuse

    210 A.D.3d 1401 (N.Y. App. Div. 2022)   Cited 13 times

    Public Officers Law § 87 (2) (b) provides that an "agency may deny access to records or portions thereof that ... if disclosed would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy under the provisions of [section 89 (2)]." The personal privacy exemption "allows agencies and their employees to protect sensitive matters in which there is little or no public interest, like personal information or unsubstantiated allegations, from public disclosure" ( Matter of New York Times Co. v. City of New York Off. of the Mayor , 194 A.D.3d 157, 165, 144 N.Y.S.3d 428 [1st Dept. 2021], lv denied 37 N.Y.3d 913, 2021 WL 5372309 [2021] ). The personal privacy exemption "is qualified" by Public Officers Law § 89 (2) (c) (i) ( Matter of New York Comm. for Occupational Safety & Health v. Bloomberg , 72 A.D.3d 153, 160, 892 N.Y.S.2d 377 [1st Dept. 2010] ; see e.g. Matter of Scott, Sardano & Pomeranz v. Records Access Officer of City of Syracuse , 65 N.Y.2d 294, 298, 491 N.Y.S.2d 289, 480 N.E.2d 1071 [1985] ; Matter of Police Benevolent Assn. of N.Y. State, Inc. v. State of New York , 145 A.D.3d 1391, 1392-1393, 44 N.Y.S.3d 578 [3d Dept. 2016] ; Matter of Obiajulu v. City of Rochester , 213 A.D.2d 1055, 1056, 625 N.Y.S.2d 779 [4th Dept. 1995] ), which provides that "disclosure shall not be construed to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy ... when identifying details are deleted" ( § 89 [2] [c] [i] ).

  2. Ateres Bais Yaakov Acad. of Rockland v. Town of Clarkstown

    218 A.D.3d 462 (N.Y. App. Div. 2023)   Cited 2 times

    Accordingly, the petitioner was entitled to an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and litigation costs incurred on the FOIL cause of action (seeMatter of McNerney v. Carmel Cent. Sch. Dist., 204 A.D.3d 1012, 1014, 165 N.Y.S.3d 348 ; Matter of Cohen v. Alois, 201 A.D.3d 1104, 1107, 162 N.Y.S.3d 167 ; Matter of New York Times Co. v. City of New York Off. of the Mayor, 194 A.D.3d 157, 166, 144 N.Y.S.3d 428 ). The fact that much of the petitioner's representation was undertaken by pro bono counsel did not affect the petitioner's entitlement to reasonable attorneys’ fees and litigation costs under the statute (seeBlum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 895, 104 S.Ct. 1541, 79 L.Ed.2d 891 ; Matter of Thomas v. Coughlin, 194 A.D.2d 281, 283, 606 N.Y.S.2d 378 ; Matter of Humphrey v. Gross, 135 A.D.2d 634, 635, 522 N.Y.S.2d 213 ; accordMatter of Gedan v. Town of Mamaroneck [N.Y.], 170 A.D.3d 833, 834, 94 N.Y.S.3d 178 ).

  3. N.Y. Civil Liberties Union v. N.Y.C. Dep't. of Corr.

    213 A.D.3d 530 (N.Y. App. Div. 2023)   Cited 17 times

    Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Lyle E. Frank, J.), entered April 19, 2022, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granting petitioner's Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) petition to the extent of ordering respondent New York City Department of Correction (DOC) to produce certain records and data, identifying proposed redactions and providing justifications for such redactions, and denying petitioner's request for attorney's fees and costs, unanimously affirmed, without costs. The personal privacy exemption set forth in Public Officers Law § 87(2) allows state agencies to protect sensitive matters, which are of little or no public interest, and which may include unsubstantiated allegations (seeMatter of New York Times Co. v. City of New York Off. of the Mayor, 194 A.D.3d 157, 165, 144 N.Y.S.3d 428 [1st Dept. 2021], lv denied 37 N.Y.3d 913, 2021 WL 5372309 [2021] ; Matter of Western Suffolk Bd. of Coop. Educ. Servs. v. Bay Shore Union Free School Dist., 250 A.D.2d 772, 772, 672 N.Y.S.2d 776 [2d Dept. 1998] ). However, Public Officers Law § 87(2) does not create a categorical or blanket exemption from disclosure for unsubstantiated complaints or allegations of uniformed officers’ misconduct (seeMatter of New York Civ. Liberties Union v. City of Syracuse, 210 A.D.3d 1401, 1403–1404, 178 N.Y.S.3d 331 [4th Dept. 2022] ; Matter of Thomas v. New York City Dept. of Educ., 103 A.D.3d 495, 497, 962 N.Y.S.2d 29 [1st Dept. 2013] ).

  4. Law Office of Cyrus Joubin, Esq. v. Manhattan Dist. Attorney's Office

    2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 33621 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2024)

    Specifically, in enacting FOIL, the legislature declared that 'government is the public's business' and expressly found that 'a free society is maintained when government is responsive and responsible to the public, and when the public is aware of governmental actions" (Matter of South Shore Press, Inc. v Havemeyer, 136 A.D.3d 929, 931 [2d Dept 2016]; see New York Times Co. v City of N.Y. Off. of Mayor, 194 A.D.3d 157, 166 [1st Dept 2021] ["The legislature's [2017] amendment to the fees provision, which made a fees award mandatory rather than 'precatory,' was intended to give more teeth to the public's right of access under FOIL."]). As explained by the Court of Appeals, "[o]nly after a court finds that the statutory prerequisites have been satisfied may it exercise its discretion to award or decline attorneys' fees" (Beechwood Restorative Care Ctr. v. Signor, 5 N.Y.3d 435, 441 [2005]).

  5. Gonsalez v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth.

    2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 33294 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2024)

    (Matter of South Shore Press, Inc. v Havemeyer, 136 A.D.3d 929, 931 [2d Dept 2016]). Moreover, "[t]he attorneys' fees provision of FOIL was amended, effective December 13, 2017, to provide that the court 'shall' award counsel fees where the agency has no basis for denying access to the material sought" (Matter of Rei burn v New York City Dept, of Parks &Recreation, 171 A.D.3d 670, 671 [1st Dept 2019]; see New York Times Co. v City of N.Y. Off. of Mayor, 194 A.D.3d 157, 166 [1st Dept 2021] ["The legislature's [2017] amendment to the fees provision, which made a fees award mandatory rather than 'precatory,' was intended to give more teeth to the public's right of access under FOIL

  6. The Legal Aid Soc'y v. N.Y.C. Health & Hosps.

    2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 32820 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2024)

    . Moreover, "[t]he attorneys' fees provision of FOIL was amended, effective December 13, 2017, to provide that the court 'shall' award counsel fees where the agency has no basis for denying access to the material sought" (Matter of Reiburn v. New York City Dept, of Parks & Recreation, 171 A.D.3d 670, 671 [1st Dept 2019]; see New York Times Co. v. City of N.Y. Off. of Mayor, 194 A.D.3d 157, 166 [1st Dept 2021] ["The legislature's [2017] amendment to the fees provision, which made a fees award mandatory rather than 'precatory,' was intended to give more teeth to the public's right of access under FOIL."]). As explained by the Court of Appeals, "[o]nly after a court finds that the statutory prerequisites have been satisfied may it exercise its discretion to award or decline attorneys' fees" (Beechwood Restorative Care Ctr. v. Signor, 5 N.Y.3d 435, 441 [2005]). Where, as here, "it was the initiation of this proceeding which brought about the release of the documents" (Matter of Powhida v. City of Albany, 147 A.D.2d 236, 239 [3d Dept 1989]), the petitioner is deemed to have "substantially prevailed" (see Matter of Madeiros v. New York State Educ. Dept., 30 N.Y.3d 67, 79 [2018]).

  7. Law Office of Cyrus Joubin, Esq. v. N.Y.C. Dep't of Corr.

    2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 32165 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2024)   Cited 1 times

    Specifically, in enacting FOIL, the legislature declared that 'government is the public's business' and expressly found that 'a free society is maintained when government is responsive and responsible to the public, and when the public is aware of governmental actions" (Matter of South Shore Press, Inc. v Havemeyer, 136 A.D.3d 929, 931 [2d Dept 2016]; see New York Times Co. v City of N.Y. Off. of Mayor, 194 A.D.3d 157, 166 [1st Dept 2021] ["The legislature's [2017] amendment to the fees provision, which made a fees award mandatory rather than 'precatory,' was intended to give more teeth to the public's right of access under FOIL."]). As explained by the Court of Appeals, "[o]nly after a court finds that the statutory prerequisites have been satisfied may it exercise its discretion to award or decline attorneys' fees" (Beechwood Restorative Care Ctr. v. Signor, 5 N.Y.3d 435, 441 [2005]).

  8. Newsday LLC v. Suffolk Cnty. Police Dep't

    2023 N.Y. Slip Op. 51507 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2023)

    "[Courts] typically construe exemptions narrowly, and an agency has the burden of demonstrating that an exemption applies 'by articulating a particularized and specific justification for denying access'" (Matter of Kosmider v Whitney, 34 N.Y.3d 48, 54, 108 [2019]), quoting Matter of Capital Newspapers Division of Hearst Corporation v Burns, 67 N.Y.2d 562, 566 [1986]. All documents in the possession of an agency are presumed to be open to the public under FOIL unless the agency can identify a specific statutory exemption (Matter of Data Tree, LLC v Romaine, 9 N.Y.3d 454, 462 [2007]; see also Matter of New York Times Company v City of New York Office of Mayor, 194 A.D.3d 157 [1st Dept 2021], lv to app den'd, 37 N.Y.3d 913 [2021]).

  9. The Jewish Pres Inc. v. Metro. Transp. Auth. of N.Y.

    2022 N.Y. Slip Op. 31063 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2022)

    Pursuant to the FOIL, government records are presumptively available to the public unless they are statutorily exempted and/or privileged under POL § 87 (2). See e.g., Matter of New York Times Co. v City of New York Off. of the Mayor, 194 A.D.3d 157, 163 (1st Dept 2021); Matter of Rauh v de Blasio, 161 A.D.3d 120, 125 (1st Dept 2018). TJP's petition alleges that the MTA's redactions to its April 20, 2021 production were not justified by any of the statute's exemptions and/or privileges.

  10. Surveillance Tech. Oversight Project v. N.Y.C. Police Dep't

    2021 N.Y. Slip Op. 32805 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2021)

    Matter of New York Times Co. v City of New York Off. of the Mayor, 194 A.D.3d 157, 163 (1st Dept 2021). The Court of Appeals holds that Public Officers Law § 89 (3) (a) sets forth the "three permissible final responses to a FOIL request: (1) grant the request and disclose documents, (2) certify that the record cannot be found after a diligent search, or (3) 'deny such request,' invoking one or more [statutory] exemption."