Conditioning the disclosure of material sought pursuant to a FOIL request upon the prepayment of costs authorized by statute
Supreme Court, among other things, granted Petitioners' motion to prohibit the School District's imposition of costs under color of Public Officers Law §87(1) related to Petitioners' request pursuant to the Freedom of Information Law [FOIL]. School District appealed.
The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed the lower court's decision, explaining that School District "failed to demonstrate sufficient justification for the costs sought to be imposed pursuant to §87(1)."
Citing Matter of Weslowski v Vanderhoef, 98 AD3d 1123, the Appellate Division opined that in the event an agency conditions disclosure of material sought pursuant to FOIL upon the prepayment of costs or refuses to disclose records except upon prepayment of costs, the agency has the burden of articulating a particularized and specific justification' for the imposition of those fees." In the words of the Appellate Division: "Specifically, the agency must demonstrate that the fees to be imposed are authorized by the cost provisions of FOIL" and found that the School District failed to meet that burden in this instance.
With respect to School District's contention that Supreme Court should have denied, with prejudice, Petitioners' motion seeking attorney's fees and other litigation costs, the Appellate Division concluded that Supreme Court properly determined that the issue of the School District's liability for such payments remained an open question at this stage in the litigation as no determination could yet be made as to whether Petitioners would "substantially prevail" for the purposes of claiming such reimbursement.
The decision is posted on the Internet at:
CAUTION
Subsequent court and administrative rulings, or changes to laws, rules and regulations may have modified or clarified or vacated or reversed the information and, or, decisions summarized in NYPPL.
For example, New York State Department of Civil Service's Advisory Memorandum 24-08 reflects changes required as the result of certain amendments to §72 of the New York State Civil Service Law to take effect January 1, 2025 [See Chapter 306 of the Laws of 2024]. Advisory Memorandum 24-08 in PDF format is posted on the Internet at https://www.cs.ny.gov/ssd/pdf/AM24-08Combined.pdf.
Accordingly, the information and case summaries should be Shepardized® or otherwise checked to make certain that the most recent information is being considered by the reader.
THE MATERIAL ON THIS WEBSITE IS FOR INFORMATION ONLY. AGAIN, CHANGES IN LAWS, RULES, REGULATIONS AND NEW COURT AND ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS MAY AFFECT THE ACCURACY OF THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THIS LAWBLOG. THE MATERIAL PRESENTED IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE AND THE USE OF ANY MATERIAL POSTED ON THIS WEBSITE, OR CORRESPONDENCE CONCERNING SUCH MATERIAL, DOES NOT CREATE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP.
NYPPL Blogger Harvey Randall served as Principal Attorney, New York State Department of Civil Service; Director of Personnel, SUNY Central Administration; Director of Research, Governor’s Office of Employee Relations; and Staff Judge Advocate General, New York Guard.
Consistent with the Declaration of Principles jointly adopted by a Committee of the American Bar Association and a Committee of Publishers and Associations, the material posted to this blog is presented with the understanding that neither the publisher nor NYPPL and, or, its staff and contributors are providing legal advice to the reader and in the event legal or other expert assistance is needed, the reader is urged to seek such advice from a knowledgeable professional.
New York Public Personnel Law.
Email: publications@nycap.rr.com