Petitioner submitted a request to the Nassau County Police Department [NCPD] pursuant to the Freedom of Information Law [FOIL], Article 6 of the Public Officers Law, seeking the disclosure of certain records. On that same day NCPD denied Petitioner's FOIL request in its entirety and Petitioner filed an administrative appeal. A short time later NCPD sent Petitioner an email with an attached letter and certain documents.
Petitioner then initiated a proceeding pursuant to CPLR Article 78 to compel disclosure of the records and for an award of attorneys' fees and litigation costs.
Supreme Court denied the petition and Petitioner appealed the Supreme Court's judgment. The Appellate Division reversed the Supreme Court's judgment "on the law, with costs", reinstated the petition and remitted the matter to the Supreme Court "for a determination of the petition on the merits".
The Appellate Division noted that NCPD "had answered the petition and submitted an attorney's affidavit," arguing, among other things, that the [Petitioner] had not exhausted his administrative remedies because [Petitioner] failed to produce a copy of a final determination from the NCPD.
The Appellate Division explained that a petitioner may commence a CPLR Article 78 proceeding seeking review of an administrative determination "only after the determination has become final and binding". Further, said the court, "[a]n administrative determination becomes final and binding when two requirements are met: completeness (finality) of the determination and exhaustion of administrative remedies".*
The Appellate Division opined that Supreme Court improperly denied the petition on the theory that the Petitioner had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies.
Noting that Petitioner had appealed the NCPD's original determination and that, in response, he had received an email with an attached letter from the NCPD. The Appellate Division said the email with the attached letter from NCPD constituted NCPD's final determination as the NCPD's time to respond to Petitioner's appeal had by then expired. Thus the email and the attached letter constituted NCPD's final response.
Accordingly, the Appellate Division concluded that Supreme Court should have determined that Petitioner "had, in fact, exhausted his administrative remedies".
As the petition at issue was denied based of "the [Petitioner's] purported failure to exhaust his administrative remedies", the Appellate Division remitted the matter to the Supreme Court "for a determination of the petition on the merits," including Petitioner's entitlement to attorneys' fees and litigation costs.
* The Appellate Division noted that "[t]he general rule requiring a party to exhaust administrative remedies before seeking judicial review of an agency's determination need not be followed ... when resort to an administrative remedy would be futile".
Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's decision posted on the Internet.