An email with an attached letter from the agency received prior to the expiration of its time to respond to a Freedom of Information request found to have constituted its final determination

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.

The New York State Court of Appeals holds that the State of New York's Ethics Commission Reform Act of 2022 did not unconstitutionally vests the State Commission on Ethics and Lobbying in Government with executive power

The New York State Court of Appeals said that "Plaintiff's principal argument is that because the Commission exercises executive power, the Governor must have power to appoint and remove the Commissioners. " However, opined the court, "In New York ... the Legislature—not the Governor—may ordinarily define the terms on which non-constitutional state officers may be appointed and removed".

Considering the Plaintiff's secondary arguments, the court decided "the Commission's placement within the Department of State does not violate Article V of the State Constitution." 

According, the Court said "we conclude that plaintiff has not carried his burden and reverse the order of the Appellate Division".

Click HERE to access the decision of the Court of Appeals posted on the Internet.

Please participate in the New York State Workers' Compensation Board's "Integrated Support Services Awareness Survey"

The New York State Workers' Compensation Board has free support services available to injured workers. To assist the Board  gauge public awareness of these important services, the Board would appreciate readers taking this brief survey. Your responses are anonymous. 

For information about these resources, visit wcb.ny.gov/supportservices. 

The following resources are also available via the Internet: 

vocational rehabilitation (Español) 

and 

social services fact sheets (Español) 

The Board encourages you to share these resources with your clients.  

Interested in information the Board has made available to attorneys or legal representatives? Please visit the Board’s Representatives webpage.

Applying the Doctrine of Mootness results in the dismissal of an appeal

An appeal filed by Chief Administrative Judge of the Court [CAJ] challenging a CPLR Article 78 ruling by a State Supreme Court dismissed by the Appellate Division "for mootness".

The CAJ had challenged a Supreme Court's ruling that annulled so much of the CAJ's administrative decision which directed a former judge of the Surrogate's Court to surrender "all keys, access cards, and other means of entry to the courts and facilities of the New York State Unified Court System, as well as any computer or equipment provided thereby within her custody or control".

Dismissing the appeal as academic, the Appellate Division, citing Precious Care Mgt., LLC v Monsey Care, LLC, 221 AD3d 922 and Caffrey v North Arrow Abstract & Settlement Servs., Inc., 160 AD3d 121, noted that it took, with the consent of the parties, judicial notice of the former Surrogate Court judge's] resignation from office, "which was publicly available on the website of the Commission of Judicial Conduct."

In the words of the Appellate Division, "[A]n appeal is moot unless an adjudication of the merits will result in immediate and practical consequences to the parties". In view of the changed circumstances in this case, the Appellate Division said it found that the former judge's resignation from her position as a judge "has rendered [the CAJ's] appeal academic."

Further, opined the Appellate Division, an exception to the mootness doctrine does not apply to the facts in this case "as the bases for the administrative determination are specific to the facts of this case". The Appellate Division said it had determined that the issue was not one that is capable of repetition nor "was there evidence to support the [CAJ's] contention that the issue is one that will typically evade review in the future".

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

NYPPL is not posting case summaries today in observance of Presidents' Day.