The County and its Assessment
Review Commission [County] rejected a Freedom of Information Law [FOIL] request
for certain records submitted by an individual [Petitioner]. County contended the
records demanded were "intra-agency materials" within the meaning of FOIL and thus could be denied as "exempt" pursuant to Public
Officers Law §87(2)(g).
Petitioner initiated a CPLR Article 78 proceeding to
compel the production of the records Petitioner sought, contending the records were
factual data and not in the nature of an opinion, advice, or recommendation. Supreme
Court granted Plaintiff's petition to produce the records demanded and County
appealed .
The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's ruling, with
costs. In sustaining the Supreme Court's ruling the Appellate Division observed:
1. "FOIL imposes a broad duty on government agencies to make
their records available to the public" citing Matter of Madeiros v New York State Educ. Dept., 30 NY3d
67, and Matter of Tuckahoe Common Sch. Dist. v Town of Southampton,
179 AD3d 929;
2. Such records court, are "presumptively open for public inspection
and copying," unless they fall within an enumerated statutory exemption set out in
Public Officers Law §87;
N.B. There are other statutory exemptions to disclosing government records.*
3. "FOIL does not
require that the party requesting records make any showing of need, good faith
or legitimate purpose" in support of a FOIL request as the underlying
premise is that "the public is vested with an inherent right to know and that
official secrecy is anathematic to our form of government";
4. "FOIL's statutory exemptions to
disclosure "are to be narrowly interpreted so that the public is granted
maximum access to the records of government"; and
5. It is the agency's burden "to
demonstrate that the requested material 'falls squarely within a FOIL exemption".**
Rejecting County's reliance on exemptions authorized by FOIL with respect to the material sought in response to Plaintiff's FOIL application,
the Appellate Division held that Supreme Court correctly determined that the information Plaintiff requested constituted "objective information," distinguishable from "opinions, ideas, or advice" and thus Supreme Court
properly granted Plaintiff's Article 78 petition to compel County's production of the records Plaintiff requested.
* See, for example, Education Law, §1127 [Confidentiality of records] and §33.13,
Mental Hygiene Law [Clinical records; confidentiality].
** See, also; Matter of Madeiros v New York State Educ.
Dept., 30 NY3d at 74; and Matter of Baez v Brown, 124 AD3d 881, at 883.
Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's
decision posted on the Internet.
Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings
[OATH] Administrative Law Judge [ALJ] Kara J. Miller considered the Agency's request that a community coordinator [CC] charged with violating a previously
issued warning memo