The Appellate Division ruled that Supreme Court had properly dismissed the Plaintiff's several petitions insofar as Plaintiff sought review of alleged constructive denials of the dozens of purported Freedom of Information Law [FOIL] requests.
MTA Plaintiff had not consistently submitted his FOIL requests through a MTA's online portal or by physical mail to the MTA's FOIL team. Even when instructed to submit all his additional FOIL requests using the MTA online portal, Plaintiff declined to do so and then failed to follow the MTA's procedure for appealing alleged "constructive denials" of purported FOIL requests.
Supreme Court also denied Plaintiff's motions to amend Plaintiff's amended petition and motion for a default judgment, and dismissed the instant proceeding Plaintiff had filed pursuant to CPLR Article 78.
The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed the Supreme Court's rulings, noting that:
1. Plaintiff's original FOIL request, submitted February 18, 2025, was appropriately denied and leave to amend was providently denied for failure to exhaust administrative remedies;
2. Plaintiff's February 18, 2025 FOIL request was under consideration when Plaintiff commenced the instant Article 78 proceeding on June 6, 2025 and when Plaintiff filed an amended petition on August 14, 2025; and
3. Plaintiff moved to further amend after Plaintiff received a partial response to his FOIL request and was informed that additional efforts to locate FOIL documents responsive were ongoing.
The Appellate Division held that Supreme Court had properly dismissed Plaintiff's amended petition insofar as Plaintiff sought review of alleged constructive denials of the dozens of purported FOIL requests Plaintiff had sent in April 2025 as those requests were not properly submitted to the MTA, which provides for submission of FOIL requests either through an online portal or by physical mail to the MTA's FOIL team*.
Even when instructed to submit all his additional FOIL requests using the MTA online portal, Plaintiff declined and then Plaintiff failed to follow the MTA's procedure for appealing constructive denials of these purported requests.
Finding that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies regarding these FOIL requests.
In addition, the Appellate Division observed that Supreme Court had "appropriately denied [Plaintiff's] motion for a default judgment, as [Plaintiff had] moved for relief while the MTA's cross-motion to dismiss was still pending".
* The Appellate Division's decision notes that Petitioner "appropriately submitted his first request through the MTA online portal and by physical mail, but he failed to send his remaining requests by either of these methods".
Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's decision posted on the Internet.