Theft of retirement benefits discovered by the Comptroller’s Division of Investigations and the Social Security Administration

On July 11, 2023, New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli, United States Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia Ryan K. Buchanan and Inspector General for the Social Security Administration Gail S. Ennis announced that Sandra Smith, a resident of Georgia, has pleaded guilty to the federal crime of theft of government funds and must pay back $459,050 in New York state pension and Social Security payments that were issued to her deceased mother-in-law.

Smith pleaded guilty to two counts of theft of government funds. Under her plea agreement, she will pay $264,699 in restitution to the New York State's Employees'  Retirement System [ERS] and $194,351 to the Social Security Administration.

“Exploiting the death of a family member for personal profit is a heinous crime,” DiNapoli said. “The defendant took advantage of our state pension fund and the Social Security Administration but as a result of our joint investigation her crimes  were discovered. She now faces the consequences of her actions. My thanks to U.S. Attorney Buchanan and the Social Security Administration Office of the Inspector General [SSA-OIG] for their partnership in ensuring justice was served and restitution was made in this case.”

The defendant’s late-mother-in-law, Minnie Smith, was an employee of the New York State Insurance Fund for 20 years until retiring in 2005. To be closer to family, she later moved from Brooklyn to Georgia and passed away there on Sept. 14, 2006.

As her mother-in-law’s caretaker, Sandra Smith had access to her bank account, which she kept open after her mother-in-law’s death to enable the theft of  continued payments from the New York Employees' Retirement System and the Social Security Administration. The thefts were discovered and investigated by the Comptroller’s Division of Investigations and the SSA-OIG.

Smith, 49, pleaded before Judge Eleanor Ross of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.

###

Since taking office in 2007, DiNapoli has committed to fighting public corruption and encourages the public to help fight fraud and abuse. New Yorkers can report allegations of fraud involving taxpayer money by calling the toll-free Fraud Hotline at 1-888-672-4555, by filing a complaint online at https://www.osc.state.ny.us/investigations, or by mailing a complaint to: Office of the State Comptroller, Division of Investigations, 8th Floor, 110 State St., Albany, NY 12236.

 

Social media platform Threads launched

New York State public entities on the social media platform Threads with at least one post created in the first 24 hours of the launch of the platform.

Albany Public Library, Albany, New York, Library, Verified - No

NY State Parks, New York, Parks, Verified - Yes

City of New York, New York, New York, City, Verified - Yes

NYS Department of Labor, New York, Labor, Verified - Yes

Minnewaska State Park Preserve, New York, Parks, Verified - No

Westbury Union Free School District, Westbury, New York, Education, Verified - No

Jefferson County Public Health, New York, Public Health, Verified - No

Source: Threads • Updated July 6, 2023, by Nikki Davidson.

Link to Application: Threads

Recent decisions issued by the Commissioner of Education

Petitioners in this appeal to the Commissioner of Education alleged the Board of Education failed to hire a school resource officer [SRO] and seek the removal from the board its president and other, unspecified board members [Board]. The Commissioner dismissed the appeal and denied the application.

Petitioners asserted that the Board engaged in willful misconduct and neglect of duty by failing to expeditiously hire a second SRO and requested the Commissioner "remove the board president, and any other board member whose removal [the Commissioner] deems warranted, from office."

According to an affidavit submitted by the board president, “[b]etween June 16, 2022 and November 2022 … there were internal discussions as to where the money would come from to fund [a] second SRO.”  On November 16, 2022, the board rejected a resolution to “authorize the transfer of [funds] from [the] unassigned fund balance to the [SRO] budget code … to cover the cost of a second [SRO].” 

Following commencement of this appeal, the board announced that it had secured a grant to fund the second SRO position and thereafter approved a resolution “to allocate [funds] to cover the cost of the second [SRO] through [the end of the 2022-2023 school year].” 

The Board contended that the appeal should be dismissed for lack of standing, as moot, and for failure to join necessary parties. The Board also contended the appeal should be dismissed on the merits in that the Board acted in good faith with respect to the employment of a second SRO.

The Commissioner dismissed the appeal as moot, explaining that the Commissioner "will only decide matters in actual controversy and will not render a decision on a state of facts that no longer exists due to the passage of time or a change in circumstances."

Further, the Commissioner noted that a Commissioner of Education "may remove a school officer or member of a board of education from office when it is proven to the satisfaction of the Commissioner that the officer or board member has engaged in a willful violation or neglect of duty under the Education Law or has willfully disobeyed a decision, order, rule, or regulation of the Board of Regents or the Commissioner." The Commissioner then explained that to be considered willful, "the action of a board member or school officer must have been intentional and committed with a wrongful purpose."

The Commission opined that the record indicated that "the board did not immediately hire a second SRO in June 2022 due to the need to identify a funding stream for the position," and that the board president explained that “the [Board] determined that it would not be prudent to draw from [its] [u]nassigned [f]und [b]alance to pay for a contract that was not contemplated at the time the budget was prepared … the district’s budget is tight and does not allow for significant unbudgeted expenditures.”

Finding that Petitioners "have not proven that the board president engaged in any willful violation of the Education Law" the Commissioner held that "their application for his removal must therefore be denied."

Click HERE to access the decision of the Commissioner in this appeal posted on the Internet.

In addition, the Commissioner of Education recently issued four decisions addressing actions by Boards of Education involving residency and homelessness issues. 

Click on the text in color set out below to access these decisions posted on the Internet.

Decision No. 18,290

Decision No. 18,291

Decision No. 18,292

Decision No. 18,293

 

 

 

 

Right to privacy

New York Archives [Archives],* published quarterly by the Archives Partnership Trust, is an educational publication about New York State history as revealed by research in archival records maintained throughout the State of New York.

The Summer 2023 issue of  Archives includes an article concerning the decision in Roberson v Rochester Folding Box Company, 171 NY 538, [1902]. Roberson is said to be the genesis of New York States' initial privacy statute, "the earliest of its kind in the nation".

Click HERE to access a variety of postings on "YouTube" addressing the "Right to Privacy" via a link provided in this article published by Archives.

* https://www.nysarchivestrust.org/new-york-archives-magazine

Governments Jump on Threads

On July 10, 2023, GOVTECH TODAY reported that "Hundreds of Government Agencies Have Opened Threads Accounts within the first 24 hours of the social media platform’s launch." Many government agencies and officials are already active on the Twitter competitor Threads" noted GOVTECH TODAY and asked "Is it the future of social media?" Click to READ MORE .

GovTech Today also invites those interested to take "a deeper dive into cybersecurity in state and local government" with its weekly cyber newsletter. [Click to SUBSCRIBE].

 

 

Designation of Floating Holidays in Lieu of Election Day and Lincoln's Birthday for employees of the State of New York as the employer for Contract Year 2023–2024

The New York State Department of Civil Service has published the following Attendance and Leave Bulletin:

Advisory Memorandum 2023-03

Designation of Floating Holidays in Lieu of Election Day and Lincoln's Birthday [Contract Year 2023–2024]

Text of Advisory Memorandum 2023-03 will be found at:
https://www.cs.ny.gov/attendance_leave/AdvMemo23-03.cfm

If you wish to print Advisory Memorandum 2023-03 the Department offers a version in PDF format at:
https://www.cs.ny.gov/attendance_leave/AM2023-03.pdf

To view previous Attendance and Leave bulletins issued by the Department of Civil Service, visit: https://www.cs.ny.gov/attendance_leave/index.cfm

Efforts to annul the determination of the New York State Division of Human Rights dismissing petitioner's complaint alleging unlawful discrimination rejected

The Appellate Division concluded that the evidence provided to the Administrative Law Judge [ALJ] was sufficient for the ALJ to determine that petitioner in this action did not suffer an adverse employment action as a result of discrimination. Further, said the court,  the additional evidence that petitioner sought to introduce was beyond the scope of the case.

Decided June 30, 2023 

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department 

PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., SMITH, CURRAN, MONTOUR, AND OGDEN, JJ.

994 TP 22-01050

THE MATTER OF KELLY PHILLIPS, PETITIONER,

v

NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND CITY OF ROCHESTER, RESPONDENTS.

JEFFREY WICKS, PLLC, ROCHESTER (CHARLES D. STEINMAN OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER.

LINDA S. KINGSLEY, CORPORATION COUNSEL, ROCHESTER (YVETTE CHANCELLOR GREEN OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT CITY OF ROCHESTER.

 

Proceeding pursuant to Executive Law § 298 (transferred to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department by order of the Supreme Court, Monroe County [Sam L. Valleriani, J.], entered June 22, 2022) to review a determination of respondent New York State Division of Human Rights. The determination dismissed the complaint of petitioner.

It is hereby ORDERED that the determination is unanimously confirmed without costs and the petition is dismissed.

Memorandum: Petitioner commenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 and Executive Law § 298 seeking to annul the determination of respondent New York State Division of Human Rights (SDHR) dismissing her complaint alleging unlawful discrimination. Our review of the determination, which adopted the findings of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) who conducted the public hearing, " 'is limited to consideration of whether substantial evidence supports the agency determination' " (Matter of Scheuneman v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 147 AD3d 1523, 1524 [4th Dept 2017], quoting Rainer N. Mittl, Ophthalmologist, P.C. v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 100 NY2d 326, 331 [2003]; see 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176, 180 [1978]). " 'Courts may not weigh the evidence or reject [SDHR's] determination where the evidence is conflicting and room for choice exists. Thus, when a rational basis for the conclusion adopted by [SDHR] is found, the judicial function is exhausted' " (Matter of Russo v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 137 AD3d 1600, 1600 [4th Dept 2016], quoting Matter of State Div. of Human Rights [Granelle], 70 NY2d 100, 106 [1987]).

Contrary to petitioner's contention, there is substantial evidence to support the determination that she was not discriminated against based on her gender. To establish a prima facie case of employment discrimination, petitioner was required to demonstrate that she was a member of a protected class, that she was qualified for her position, that she suffered an adverse employment action, and that the adverse action "occurred under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discriminatory motive" (Forrest v Jewish Guild for the Blind, 3 NY3d 295, 306 [2004]; see Matter of Lyons v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 79 AD3d 1826, 1827 [4th Dept 2010], lv denied 17 NY3d 707 [2011]). We agree with SDHR that petitioner failed to establish that she suffered an adverse employment action arising out of the refusal of the Rochester Police Department (RPD) to issue a smaller service weapon (see Matter of Gordon v New York State Dept. of Corr. & Community Supervision, 138 AD3d 1477, 1478 [4th Dept 2016]; Lyons, 79 AD3d at 1827). Petitioner further failed to demonstrate that any allegedly adverse employment action " 'occurred under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination' " (Gordon, 138 AD3d at 1478, quoting Forrest, 3 NY3d at 308).

Petitioner's contentions concerning other alleged adverse employment actions are not properly before us inasmuch as the adverse action alleged in the complaint filed with SDHR is limited to the RPD's failure to issue petitioner a smaller service weapon (see generally 9 NYCRR 465.3 [c] [3]) and there is no evidence that either petitioner or the SDHR amended the complaint to expand the scope of the case (see 9 NYCRR 465.4 [a], [c]; see generally Matter of Niagara Frontier Transp. Auth. v Nevins, 295 AD2d 887, 887 [4th Dept 2002]; Matter of Presbyterian Hosp. of City of N.Y. v State Div. of Human Rights, 241 AD2d 319, 320 [1st Dept 1997]).

Finally, we conclude that the ALJ did not abuse his discretion in denying petitioner's request to reopen the hearing. The evidence adduced provided the ALJ with a sufficient basis to determine that petitioner did not suffer an adverse employment action as a result of discrimination, and the additional evidence that petitioner sought to introduce was beyond the scope of the case (see 9 NYCRR 465.12 [f] [3], [13]; see generally Matter of Mario v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 200 AD3d 1591, 1592-1593 [4th Dept 2021], lv denied 38 NY3d 909 [2022]; Matter of McGuirk v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 139 AD3d 570, 571 [1st Dept 2016]).

Entered: June 30, 2023

Ann Dillon Flynn

Clerk of the Court

 

Seeking to vacate an arbitrator's award on the ground that it was issued in excess of the arbitrator's power.

In this action seeking to vacate an arbitration award, the employer contended that the arbitrator had exceed his powers in adjudicating the grievance when he:

1. Determined the grievance to be arbitrable; and 

2. Concluded, among other things, that the grievant was entitled to the benefits claimed.

The Appellate Division opined that in the event a "reasonable relationship exists between the subject matter of the grievance and the general subject matter of the CBA," the matter is arbitrable", sustaining the arbitrator's decisions.

Matter of County of Onondaga (Civil Serv. Empls. Assn., Inc.)

2023 NY Slip Op 03599

Decided on June 30, 2023

Appellate Division, Fourth Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on June 30, 2023 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., LINDLEY, CURRAN, MONTOUR, AND OGDEN, JJ.

329 CA 22-00889

IN THE MATTER OF ARBITRATION BETWEEN COUNTY OF ONONDAGA, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT, AND

and

CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, INC., ONONDAGA COUNTY LOCAL 834, RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

DAREN J. RYLEWICZ, CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, INC., ALBANY (STEVEN M. KLEIN OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

BOLANOS LOWE, PLLC, PITTSFORD (KYLE W. STURGESS OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT.

 

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County (Donald A. Greenwood, J.), entered May 12, 2022. The order, insofar as appealed from, granted in part the petition to vacate an arbitrator's award.

It is hereby ORDERED that the order insofar as appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law without costs and the petition is denied in its entirety.

Memorandum: Petitioner, County of Onondaga, commenced this proceeding to vacate an arbitrator's award pursuant to CPLR 7511 (b) (1) (iii) on the ground that it was issued in excess of the arbitrator's power. During the underlying arbitration, the arbitrator determined a grievance to be arbitrable and concluded, among other things, that the grievant was entitled to claim benefits under an applicable New York law for November 17-18, 2020. Supreme Court granted the petition in part, vacating that portion of the arbitrator's award with regard to November 17-18, 2020, on the ground that the arbitrator "erroneously" found the matter to be arbitrable and thus exceeded his authority in interpreting the application of statutory entitlements. Respondent, Civil Service Employees Association, Inc., Onondaga County Local 834, now appeals from the order to that extent, and we reverse the order insofar as appealed from and deny the petition in its entirety.

"[J]udicial review of arbitration awards is extremely limited" (Wien & Malkin LLP v Helmsley-Spear, Inc., 6 NY3d 471, 479 [2006], cert dismissed 548 US 940 [2006]). Generally, courts " 'may vacate an arbitration award only if it violates a strong public policy, is irrational, or clearly exceeds a specifically enumerated limitation on the arbitrator's power' " (Matter of Syracuse City Sch. Dist. [Gilbert], 192 AD3d 1643, 1644 [4th Dept 2021], quoting Matter of Falzone [New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co.], 15 NY3d 530, 534 [2010]).

We agree with respondent that the arbitrator did not exceed his authority when he determined the matter to be arbitrable. The parties' collective bargaining agreement (CBA) defines a grievance as a "claimed violation, misinterpretation or an inequitable application of a specific and express term of [the CBA]." Here, the grievance dealt with an alleged inequitable application of the grievant's leave accruals. We conclude that a reasonable relationship exists between the subject matter of the grievance and the general subject matter of the CBA and the matter is arbitrable (see Matter of Board of Educ. of Watertown City School Dist. [Watertown Educ. Assn.], 93 NY2d 132, 143 [1999]). Notably, the parties included a Conformity to Law provision in the CBA, whereby the CBA and its provisions "are subordinate to any present or future Federal or New York State laws and regulations" (emphasis added).

We conclude that the arbitrator's review of relevant state law did not exceed "a specifically enumerated limitation on [his] power" (Syracuse City Sch. Dist., 192 AD3d at 1644).

Entered: June 30, 2023

Ann Dillon Flynn

Clerk of the Court

New York State Department of Civil Service memorandum and bulletin issued during the week ending June 30, 2023

The New York State Department of Civil Service has posted the items  listed below on the Internet at the URLs indicated in COLOR below:

1.  Transmittal Memorandum No. 49, 2024 Calendar of Legal Holidays and Days of Religious Significance:

    Text of Transmittal Memorandum No. 49 will be found at:
https://www.cs.ny.gov/attendance_leave/TM_49.cfm

    Transmittal Memorandum No. 49 in a version in PDF format is posted at:
https://www.cs.ny.gov/attendance_leave/TM49.pdf

To view previous Attendance and Leave bulletins issued by the Department of Civil Service, visit: https://www.cs.ny.gov/attendance_leave/index.cfm

 

2. General Information Bulletin 23-03, Civil Service Exam Fee Waiver:

     Text of General Information Bulletin 23-03 will be found at:
https://www.cs.ny.gov/ssd/Manuals/SPMM/GIBS/GIB23-03.cfm.

      General Information Bulletin 23-03 in a PDF format is posted at:
https://www.cs.ny.gov/ssd/pdf/GIB23-03.pdf.

To view previous General Information Bulletins issued by the Department of Civil Service, visit: https://www.cs.ny.gov/ssd/gibs.cfm

 

The public policy of the State of New York for firefighters is that disciplinary procedures are terms and conditions of employment subject to mandatory negotiation under the Taylor Law

Matter of Local 32 Intl. Assn. of Firefighters, AFL-CIO, Utica Professional Firefighters Assn. v New York State Pub. Empl. Relations Bd.

2023 NY Slip Op 03383

Decided on June 22, 2023

Appellate Division, Third Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided and Entered: June 22, 2023

535052

In the Matter of Local 32 International Association of Firefighters, AFL-CIO, Utica Professional Firefighters Association, Appellant,

v

New York State Public Employment Relations Board et al., Respondents.

Calendar Date:May 4, 2023
Before: Garry, P.J., Egan Jr., Clark, Reynolds Fitzgerald and Ceresia, JJ.

Blitman & King LLP, Syracuse (Nathaniel G. Lambright of counsel), for appellant.

New York State Public Employment Relations Board, Albany (Ellen M. Mitchell of counsel), for New York State Public Employment Relations Board, respondent.

William M. Borrill, Corporation Counsel, Utica (Joseph V. McBride of counsel), for City of Utica, respondent.

In June 2016, petitioner filed an improper practice charge with respondent Public Employment Relations Board (hereinafter PERB) alleging that respondent City of Utica, a second class city, violated multiple sections of Civil Service Law article 14 (hereinafter the Taylor Law) by unilaterally changing past practices related to disciplinary interrogations of City firefighters. Following administrative review, PERB concluded that it was constrained to follow Matter of City of Schenectady v New York State Pub. Empl. Relations Bd. (30 NY3d 109 [2017]), in which the Court of Appeals held that police discipline was a prohibited subject of bargaining for cities covered by the Second Class Cities Law (id. at 115-116). In doing so, PERB rejected petitioner's argument that firefighters were differently situated from police officers and, thus, the policy considerations in Matter of City of Schenectady, and the line of cases upon which it relied, were inapposite. Petitioner then commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding to annul PERB's determination, which respondents moved to dismiss. Supreme Court granted that motion, agreeing with PERB that the disciplinary provisions of the Second Class Cities Law apply with equal force to both police officers and firefighters. Petitioner appeals.

During the pendency of this appeal, the Legislature enacted the New York State Firefighter Bill of Rights Act (L 2022, ch 674), which amended both the Taylor Law and Civil Service Law § 75, addressing removal of and other disciplinary action against public employees. The Senate Introducer's memorandum in support of the bill recognized that "court decisions have noted that . . . several statutes contain[ ] provisions favoring the local control of police and fire discipline that would override the Taylor Law presumption of negotiability," and, against that backdrop, the Legislature saw it necessary to "declare it to be the public policy of the State of New York that[,] for firefighters, disciplinary procedures are terms and conditions of employment subject to mandatory negotiation under the Taylor Law" (Senate Introducer's Mem in Support of 2022 NY Senate Bill S8481, enacted as L 2022, ch 674). The act thus amends the aforementioned statutes accordingly (see Civil Service Law §§ 75 [2-a]; 201 [4]; 204-a [4]). Although, as the City aptly notes, the act expressly states that it applies to proceedings commenced on or after March 1, 2023 (see L 2022, ch 674, § 5), PERB asserts that this newly promulgated legislation directly impacts its analysis and has asked this Court to remit this matter to it for a new determination. Acknowledging these somewhat unusual circumstances, petitioner has agreed that remittal is appropriate. In light of the foregoing, we grant PERB's request and remit the matter to it for further proceedings.

Egan Jr., Clark, Reynolds Fitzgerald and Ceresia, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, on the law, without costs, determination annulled, and matter remitted to respondent Public Employment Relations Board for further proceedings not inconsistent with this Court's decision.

 

 

US Supreme Court - free speech - 303 Creative LLC et al. v Elenis et al.

Click HERE to access the Syllabus and full text of the Supreme Court's decision in 303 CREATIVE LLC ET AL . v. ELENIS ET AL., handed down on June 30, 2023.

Certain types of records are exempt from disclosure pursuant to Public Officers Law §87

The  County's Office of the District Attorney [ODA] declined to provide Plaintiff with certain records pursuant to New York State's Freedom of Information Law [FOIL]* relating to a female witness who was the victim of a sex offense.

Plaintiff then commenced a proceeding pursuant to CPLR Article 78 seeking a court order compelling the ODA to produce the records demanded. Supreme Court, agreeing with ODA contention that the records sought by Plaintiff were "exempt from disclosure" pursuant to both Public Officers Law §87(2)(a) and Public Officers Law §87(2)(e)(i), denied Plaintiff's petition and dismissed the proceeding, .

Plaintiff appealed Supreme Court's ruling.

The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's decision noting that with regard to the records requested by the Plaintiff relating to a female witness who was the victim of a sex offense, ODA had satisfied its burden of establishing that the records demanded were exempt from disclosure pursuant to Public Officers Law §87(2)(a).

The decision notes that:

1. "All government records are presumptively open for public inspection unless specifically exempt from disclosure," citing Matter of Crowe v Guccione, 171 AD3d 1170;

2. "Public Officers Law §87(2)(a) provides that an agency may deny access to records that are specifically exempted from disclosure by state or federal statute" (see Matter of Crowe v Guccione, supra); and

3. "Civil Rights Law §50-b(1) provides a statutory exemption from disclosure for documents that tend to identify the victim of a sex offense", noting Matter of Karlin v McMahon, 96 NY2d at 843.

The Appellate Division further observed that ODA "also satisfied its burden of establishing that all of the requested records were exempt from disclosure pursuant to Public Officers Law §87(2)(e)(i).** 

Here, opined the court, Plaintiff had made a "particularized FOIL request," and the ODA had demonstrated a risk associated with such disclosure that would adversely interfere a pending habeas corpus proceeding.

Other limitations on the release of some public records by statute include Education Law, §1127 - Confidentiality of records and §33.13 Mental Hygiene Law - Clinical records; confidentiality. For links to selected FOIL decision summaries posted by NYPPL click HERE.

* See Public Officers Law Article 6.

** Public Officers Law §87(2)(e)(i) provides that an agency may deny access to records that 'are compiled for law enforcement purposes only to the extent that disclosure would interfere with law enforcement investigations or judicial proceedings" by demonstrating a valid basis for denial of the Plaintiff's FOIL request, and establishing that the records sought were exempt from disclosure pursuant to §87(2)(e)(i).

Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's decision posted on the Internet.