Opinion
15229 Index No. 156114/19 Case No. 2021–02326
02-03-2022
In the Matter of Maura O'NEILL, Petitioner–Appellant, v. NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, Respondent–Respondent.
Maura O'Neill, appellant pro se. Georgia M. Pestana, Corporation Counsel, New York (Ellen Ravitch of counsel), for respondent.
Maura O'Neill, appellant pro se.
Georgia M. Pestana, Corporation Counsel, New York (Ellen Ravitch of counsel), for respondent.
Manzanet–Daniels, J.P., Webber, Oing, Mendez, Higgitt, JJ.
Appeal from judgment (denominated an order), Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen A. Rakower, J.), entered November 20, 2020, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, denying petitioner's motions for sanctions, granting respondent's cross motion to dismiss the petition seeking a judgment annulling respondent's determination dated March 18, 2019, which denied petitioner's request, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL), for certain records, and directed respondent to disclose those records, and dismissing the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously dismissed, to the extent the appeal relates to records produced by respondent, and the judgment otherwise affirmed, without costs.
Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying petitioner's sanctions applications (see 22 NYCRR 130–1.1 [a]; DeRosa v. Chase Manhattan Mtge. Corp., 15 A.D.3d 249, 250–251, 793 N.Y.S.2d 1 [1st Dept. 2005] ).
Respondent's production of responsive records moots petitioner's challenge to the denial of her FOIL request, warranting dismissal of that portion of the appeal (see Matter of Corbett v. City of New York, 160 A.D.3d 415, 416, 73 N.Y.S.3d 568 [1st Dept.], lv denied 31 N.Y.3d 913, 2018 WL 3151743 [2018] ; Matter of Alvarez v. Vance, 139 A.D.3d 459, 460, 29 N.Y.S.3d 793 [1st Dept. 2016] ).
Respondent properly redacted the records which it produced. In particular, respondent properly redacted information which would identify witnesses in criminal investigations (see Public Officers Law § 87[2][b] ; 89[2]; Matter of Exoneration Initiative v. New York City Police Dept., 114 A.D.3d 436, 439, 980 N.Y.S.2d 73 [1st Dept. 2014] ). Respondent properly redacted some records of a list of standard investigative steps to be taken in NYPD investigations, in order to prevent disclosure of "nonroutine police procedures" ( Matter of Gould v. New York City Police Dept., 89 N.Y.2d 267, 278, 653 N.Y.S.2d 54, 675 N.E.2d 808 [1996] ; see Public Officers Law § 87[2][e][iv] ). Finally, respondent properly redacted some records of specific web (http) addresses used for accessing confidential police material, which, if disclosed, "would jeopardize the [agency's capacity] to guarantee the security of its information technology assets" ( Public Officers Law § 87[2][i] ).
Supreme Court properly held to be time-barred petitioner's judicial challenge to withholding of records (relating to petitioner's CCRB complaint) that were the subject of petitioner's prior and now time-barred FOIL request (see Matter of United Probation Officers Assn. v. City of New York, 187 A.D.3d 456, 456–457, 129 N.Y.S.3d 775 [1st Dept. 2020] ; Matter of Stankevich v. New York City Police Dept., 173 A.D.3d 507, 508, 100 N.Y.S.3d 513 [1st Dept. 2019], lv denied 35 N.Y.3d 902, 2020 WL 2079114 [2020] ).