Underlying this CPLR Article 78 action was a Petitioner's Freedom of Information Law [FOIL] request for certain video footage recorded by a police officer's Body-Worn Camera [BWC]. The police department [Department] responded by providing Petitioner access to a video consisting of fully blurred images with the audio removed. The Department advised Petitioner that if a less redacted copy was requested, "the cost would need to be estimated and such fees would need to be paid in advance to obtain the more precisely redacted video."
As relevant to the issues on appeal, the Appellate Division opined that FOIL provides that "the court must assess against the agency involved the requesting party's reasonable attorney's fees and other litigation costs when the requesting party 'has substantially prevailed and the court finds that the agency had no reasonable basis for denying access.'"
Although the Department did not dispute that Petitioner "substantially prevailed" when the Department disclosed the records Petitioner sought in the FOIL request, it contended that it had a reasonable basis for denying Petitioner's FOIL request pursuant to its prepayment redaction policy.
The Appellate Division held that Petitioner "has been subjected to the very kinds of unreasonable delays and denials of access which the counsel fee provision [contained in FOIL] seeks to deter" and that Petitioner is entitled to "reasonable attorney's fees and other litigation costs."
Click HERE to access the text of the Appellate Division's ruling.