The New York Civil Liberties Union Foundation [Petitioner] was concerned that New York State Office of Court Administration [OCA] "is privately instructing judges how to interpret and apply substantive law". Respondent filed a CPLR Article 78 petition seeking a court order compelling the New York State Office of Court Administration [OCA] to disclose records requested by Petitioner pursuant to the Freedom of Information Law [FOIL], Public Officers Law §§84-90. Such records included all documents directed to judges or their chambers staff, from January 1, 2011 to the present, "in which federal or state court decisions, statutes, regulations, or ordinances are summarized, analyzed, interpreted, construed, explained, clarified, or applied". Supreme Court granted the petition and OCA appealed the Supreme Court's ruling.
The Appellate Division unanimously reversed the Supreme Court's decision "on the law," opining that Petitioner's concern that OCA is privately instructing judges how to interpret and apply substantive law "is unfounded, as the court is not bound by [OCA's] interpretations." Citing People v Knickerbocker Ice Co., 99 NY 181, the Appellate Division said "[it] has always been the province of the court to declare what the law is."
The court said that OCA "properly denied the FOIL request, insofar as raised on appeal, consititted"overbreadth", noting OCA had established that that the information sought by Petitioner is "not stored in any centralized manner, and responding to the FOIL request would involve manually reviewing employees' files and making individual determinations as to" each file.
In the words of the Appellate Division: "Under the circumstances presented, [OCA] made a particularized showing that attempting to comply with this broad request would be impracticable" and it does not avail Petitioner to argue "that [its FOIL] request should have been interpreted in a much more limited form," where "nothing in the language of the original request or the administrative appeal supports such an interpretation".
In addition the Appellate Division pointed out that OCA had properly determined that the records at issue "were exempt under the attorney-client privilege ... and the attorney work product privilege."
Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's decision posted on the Internet.