Custodian's reliance on a prohibition in a federal regulation to withhold certain documents within the ambit of the Freedom of Information Law held misplaced

The custodian of certain documents sought pursuant to the New York State Freedom of Information Law [FOIL] denied the access to the documents concerning an accident. The custodian argued that [1] "federal law prohibited [the custodian] from providing the requested documents" and [2] the "law enforcement exemption" applied in this instance.

Petitioner [Plaintiff] then initiated a CPLR Article 78 seeking a court order annulling the agency's decision. Supreme Court granted Plaintiff's application and the agency appealed. The Appellate Division sustained the lower court's ruling.

Conceding that Public Officers Law §87(2)(a) does permit the custodian of records sought pursuant to FOIL to deny access to records if they "are specifically exempted from disclosure by state or federal statute," the Appellate Division opined out that "no federal statute exists prohibiting [the custodians] from releasing [the] requested documents."

The court explained that although the federal National Transportation Safety Board had promulgated a regulation* that prohibits parties to its investigations "from releasing information obtained during an investigation at any time prior to the [National Transportation Safety Board's] public release of information ... a regulation is not a statute and, therefore, does not fall within the ambit of this narrowly construed exemption," citing Brownstone Publs. v New York City Department of Finance, 150 AD2d 185, leave to appeal denied, 75 NY2d 791.

Addressing the agency's alternative justification for its determination, its withholding the documents demanded pursuant to FOIL's "law enforcement exemption," the Appellate Division noted that Public Officers Law §87(2)(e)(i) exempts from disclosure those records, or portions thereof, that "are compiled for law enforcement purposes and which, if disclosed, would . . . interfere with law enforcement investigations or judicial proceedings."

However, said the court, in order to trigger the law enforcement exemption, the custodian of the record demanded is required to articulate a factual basis "identify[ing] the generic kinds of documents for which the exemption is claimed, and the generic risks posed by disclosure of these categories of documents."

Instead, said the Appellate Division, the agency "in conclusory and speculative fashion, averred that the exemption justified denial of access to the requested records, without providing factual assertions from anyone with personal knowledge demonstrating that the requested records were actually compiled for law enforcement purposes, either generally or specifically, in connection with the investigation of this accident."

* An Overview of Federal Regulations and the Rulemaking Process prepared by the Congressional Research Service is posted on the Internet at https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/IF10003.pdf.

Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's decision.

 

Audits and reports issued during the week ending June 12, 2021 by the New York State Comptroller

New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli announced the following audits and reports were issued during the week ending June 12, 2021.

Click on the text highlighted in colorto access the complete audit report.

Department of Agriculture and Markets: Oversight of the Farm-to-School Program (2020-S-9) The department needs to improve monitoring of both program expenditures and recipient performance to ensure recipients use funds as intended and achieve program goals. Auditors reviewed 21 (of 45) program contracts totaling approximately $2.27 million, of which $1.71 million had been expended as of February 2020. They found about $1.17 million (68 percent) in expenses for 17 contracts either lacked sufficient documentation to support expenses paid or were not authorized under the contract. 

City University of New York (CUNY): Compliance with Payment Card Industry Standards (Follow-Up) (2021-F-2) An audit issued in December 2019 found that CUNY had fallen short in providing its colleges with sufficient guidance and direction needed to ensure campus-wide compliance with payment card industry standards. In a follow-up, auditors found CUNY has made progress in addressing the findings identified in the initial report, but more needs to be done.

State Education Department (SED): Buffalo Hearing & Speech Center Inc. –  Compliance with the Reimbursable Cost Manual (2020-S-20) The center, a special education provider located in Erie County, provides preschool special education services to children with disabilities who are between three and five years of age in western New York. The center is reimbursed for these services through rates set by SED. For the fiscal year ended June 30, 2018, auditors identified $272,526 in ineligible costs reported by the center for reimbursement. SED also failed to offset $307,735 in Medicaid fee-for-service revenue received by the center when calculating its tuition rate. As a result, the center received $216,451 in excess public funding reimbursements. 

Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC): Compliance with Executive Order (EO) 95 (Open Data) (2020-S-11) EO 95 established an open data website for the collection and public dissemination of publishable state data maintained by state entities. Auditors found DEC has taken steps to meet the requirements of EO 95

Department of Motor Vehicles: Allocation, Billing, and Collection of Expenses of Administering the Motor Vehicle Financial Security Act and the Motor Vehicle Safety Responsibility Act (Follow-Up) (2021-F-3) An audit issued in December 2019 found that, in general, the department was appropriately allocating, billing, and collecting nearly all expenses related to administering the Motor Vehicle Financial Security and Motor Vehicle Safety Responsibility acts. However, it could better ensure the accuracy of its allocation and billing practices. In a follow-up, auditors found the department has made some progress in addressing the issues identified in the initial audit report and has partially implemented its two recommendations.

Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) - Bus Company: Fare Evasion (2019-S-7) MTA officials also did not provide assurance that Fare Enforcement and Worker Safety Program was effective in achieving its goal of reducing fare evasion losses below 2017 levels ($150 million). Instead, the MTA estimated that it lost more than $300 million to fare evasion in 2019. Certain aspects of the transit system contributed to increased fare evasion and much of the fare evasion and payment signage auditors observed was defaced, misleading, not prominently displayed, or not translated into the appropriate language for the neighborhood.

Office for People With Developmental Disabilities (OPWDD): Accountability and Surplussing of Vehicles (Follow-Up) (2021-F-1) An audit issued in August 2019 found OPWDD lacks sufficient controls over fleet vehicle management to ensure that all vehicles are properly accounted for, that vehicles are used for official state business only, and that Developmental Disabilities Services Offices are properly surplussing vehicles following a process that is fair and complies with state requirements. In a follow-up, auditors found OPWDD has made some progress in correcting the problems identified in the initial report, but improvements are still needed.

Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ): Selected Aspects of Leasing Practices for Real Estate Department, Aviation, World Trade Center, and Leasing of Properties (2019-S-9) PANYNJ did not realize revenue of $8.3 million from four leases at the World Trade Center (WTC) during the period June 2014 through November 2019. This amount included money due to PANYNJ for utilities, amounts due when tenants terminated their leases early, and other percentages of revenues specified in leases. PANYNJ leased seven external spaces for its use within a half mile of 1WTC at a cost of $15.9 million, despite the fact that 1WTC was not fully occupied at the time. During a review of two sampled airport system leases, auditors found that a property leased from a municipality for future development of Newark Airport was later sub-leased to a private business for a for-profit purpose. 

Workers' Compensation Board: 2019 Annual Audit (2019-WCB-01) The board processed more than 580,000 claims totaling nearly $732 million from its four special funds in 2019 - the Uninsured Employers Fund, the Special Fund for Disability Benefits, the Second Injury Fund, and the Fund for Reopened Cases. Auditors identified 1,208 errors totaling more than $4.28 million as part of daily audits. In addition, they identified 917 product code errors totaling nearly $3.85 million.

                                                                ###

Find out how your government money is spent at Open Book New York. Track municipal spending, the state's 180,000 contracts, billions in state payments and public authority data. Visit the Reading Room for contract FOIL requests, bid protest decisions and commonly requested data.

Former public officer spent stolen public funds for such personal expenses as vacations, shopping and cooking classes

On June 11, 2021, State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli and Cortland County District Attorney Patrick Perfetti announced that former Pharsalia Town Supervisor Dennis Brown pleaded guilty to stealing $240,000 in public funds and must now pay full restitution. The thefts were discovered through their joint investigation.*

“For decades, the residents of Pharsalia trusted Dennis Brown to safeguard taxpayer money, but instead he treated the town’s funds like a personal piggybank, pocketing over $240,000,” DiNapoli said. “We have no tolerance for abuse of the public’s trust and today Dennis Brown faces consequences for his crimes. My thanks to the New York State Police and to Cortland County DA Perfetti for partnering with us to uncover his corruption.”

“I acknowledge that this disposition was a long time in coming,” District Attorney Perfetti said. “I want to credit Assistant District Attorney Adam Ratner with leading extensive negotiations regarding the recovery of a substantial portion of what we would have been able to prove at trial. I hope that this case serves as a reminder to those who enjoy the honor of public service in that they execute their duties with the responsibility entrusted to them and that the public deserves.”

Brown pleaded guilty today in front of Judge Hon. Frank B. Revoir, Chenango County, to Grand Larceny in the Second Degree, as a crime of Public Corruption. He must pay $240,000 in restitution, of which he has already paid $125,000, and faces a potential state prison term at his sentencing, which is scheduled for Sept. 17, 2021.

Brown, 72, was arrested on April 10, 2019, after DiNapoli’s office, working with the State Police and District Attorney, found that he had inflated his salary and used the town credit card to pay for numerous personal expenses. He used public funds to pay for groceries, cooking classes, liquor store purchases, a subscription, gift shop purchases, clothes, designer handbags, jewelry, home utilities, work on his property and vacations.

He was the longest-serving town supervisor in Chenango County, in office for 35 years, until he lost an election in 2019. At the time of his arrest he was also a paid member of the county’s Board of Supervisors and served on its finance and public works committees. 

* As noted in previous NYPPL reports of such acts of misconduct, there is a term for such breaches of the public trust, "jobbery." Mirriam-Webster defines "jobbery as "the improper use of public office or conduct of public business for private gain".

###

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 mailing a complaint to: Office of the State Comptroller, Division of Investigations, 8th Floor, 110 State St., Albany, NY 12236 or filing a complaint online at investigations@osc.ny.gov.

Employee's claim for indemnification for legal expenses incurred in a criminal action for his alleged "unauthorized purchases using 'agency-issued' credit cards" rejected

A public authority [Employer] filed disciplinary charges filed against an officer of the Employer [Plaintiff] pursuant to Civil Service Law §75 alleging that Plaintiff had made a number of unauthorized purchases using "agency-issued" credit cards. Plaintiff was terminated and subsequently plead guilty to disorderly conduct in satisfaction of the criminal charges brought against him pursuant to §240.20 of the Penal Law.*

Plaintiff then demanded that the Employer indemnify him for, among other things, counsel fees incurred in defending himself in the criminal action by filing a claim pursuant to the Employer's Employees and Directors Liability Policy.** The Employer filed the claim and the insurance carrier declined coverage. The Employer rejected Plaintiff 's request for indemnification, contending it had no duty to indemnify employees outside the scope of its insurance coverage.

Plaintiff next commenced initiated a combined CPLRA 78 proceeding and action for declaratory judgment seeking, among other things, a declaration that he was entitled to indemnification by the Employer for his expenses, costs and counsel fees incurred in defending himself in the criminal action.

Although Supreme Court granted Plaintiff petition to the extent of declaring that Plaintiff was entitled to indemnification under the Employer's internal resolution providing for "indemnification", the Appellate Division reversed that ruling, explaining:

1. It agreed with Supreme Court that Plaintiff had "no statutory right of indemnification" under the otherwise pertinent provisions Public Officers Law §§17[3][a]; 18[4][a]; 19 [1] nor Public Authorities Law §2623 [2] any duty to indemnify Plaintiff would derive solely from a contractual obligation;

2. In the event a party is under no legal duty to indemnify an employee, "a contract assuming that obligation must be strictly construed to avoid reading into it a duty which the parties did not intend to be assumed" and a promise to indemnify "should not be found unless it can be clearly implied from the language and purpose of the entire agreement and the surrounding facts and circumstances"; and

3. The Employer's resolution pursuant to which Plaintiff claims a right of indemnification states, in pertinent part, that the Employer "agrees at its sole cost and expense to indemnify and hold harmless the members, officers and employees of [the Employer] from all costs and liabilities of every kind and nature as provided in the by-laws" with respect to the individual's "acting [o]n behalf of [the Employer]."

Noting that the language of the internal resolution is ambiguous, the Appellate Division opined that "This ambiguity itself precludes a finding of entitlement to contractual indemnification", citing Hooper Assoc. v AGS Computers, 74 N.Y.2d 487 as the resolution does not convey a clear right to indemnification and Plaintiff was ordered to pay restitution in connection with a guilty plea to disorderly conduct in satisfaction of an accusatory instrument charging intentional criminal conduct. 

Thus, said the court, "Supreme Court erred" in concluding that Plaintiff had an enforceable right to "contractual indemnification."

* Plaintiff was sentenced to 150 hours of community service and ordered to pay $8,026.53 in restitution. 

** Employee did not apply for indemnification pursuant to Public Officers Law or the Public Authorities Law.

Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's decision.

 

Records of a private entity created for the benefit of a public entity may constitute public records subject to FOIL under certain circumstances

Article 6 of the Public Officers Law, commonly referred to as the "Freedom of Information Law [FOIL], requires that an entity subject to its provisions make available for public inspection and copying all its records unless the requested records are statutorily exempt from disclosure. FOIL, however, does not require an entity "to prepare any record not possessed or maintained by such entity" and an entity "may deny a FOIL request upon providing certification that it does not have possession of the requested record or, following a diligent search, that the record cannot be found."

Plaintiff in the CPLR Article 78 action had filed a FOIL request with a public entity [Respondent] seeking various records concerning various apprenticeship training programs sponsored by a union local's [Union] "Joint Apprenticeship Training Fund" for a particular period of time. Respondent granted Plaintiff's request to the extent that it disclosed 425 pages of records within its possession but denied Plaintiff's request for certain records and for "[any] and all documents used or provided to enrollees in each of the programs for training or any other classroom activities related to training."

Plaintiff administratively appealed. Respondent's FOIL appeal officer issued a final determination finding, among other things, that the denial of certain was proper on the ground that Respondent did not maintain those documents. Plaintiff then commenced the instant Article 78 proceeding seeking a court order annulling Respondent's determination. 

Supreme Court partially granted Plaintiff's petition in part, annulling that part of the agency determination as denied Plaintiff's request with respect to certain documents, holsinf that they were subject to disclosure, and Respondent appealed.

The Appellate Division observed that:

1. It is the public policy of this state to develop sound apprenticeship training standards and to encourage industry and labor to institute apprenticeship training programs in order to develop skilled crafts people in New York State's labor force;

2. The Commissioner of Labor [Labor] is responsible for supervising these apprenticeship programs and has established and implemented procedures and standards for the approval and registration of such programs;

3. Pursuant thereto Labor procedures, private entities interested in providing apprenticeship programs[Sponsors] are required to, among other things, register with respondent, "keep adequate records relative to all phases of the operation of the program, including but not limited to job assignments, promotion, demotion, lay-off or termination, rates of pay or other form of compensation or conditions of work, and any other records pertinent to a determination of compliance with the relevant State law and 12 NYCRR.

4. A Sponsor must also submit such records "as may be required by 12 NYCRR 601.5[c][19]".

Addressing the Respondent's argument that the records sought by Plaintiff were created and maintained by the Union in order for it to demonstrate its compliance with Labor Law Article 23 and Respondent's corresponding regulations, the Appellate Division concluded that the question "distills to whether records that are maintained by a private entity for purposes of demonstrating regulatory compliance constitute records held 'for an agency' so as to be subject to disclosure under FOIL."

The Appellate Division opined that "where a state agency delegates a duty to perform an essential service to a private, third-party entity for the agency's benefit," the documents in the possession of the private entity for those purposes are considered to be "kept or held" for the agency and subject to disclosure under FOIL. 

In contrast, observed the court, where a public entity did not delegate such a duty to a private entity nor did the private entity perform any essential service on public entity's behalf, "the mere fact that[the public entity] has the discretionary regulatory authority to ask the [private entity] for the requested documents does not, ipso facto, render all documents that are created and maintained by the [private entity] subject to disclosure" pursuant to FOIL. 

Indeed, opined the Appellate Division, "... to so hold would render any document that was created or maintained by a private entity in order to comply with a corresponding agency regulation requiring the production and retention thereof a 'record' subject to disclosure under FOIL."

Recognizing that "FOIL is to be liberally construed and its exemptions narrowly interpreted so that the public is granted maximum access to the records of government," in this instance the Appellate Division said it did not find "the definition of 'record' to be so broad and all-encompassing as to bring within its ambit any document that a private entity might create and maintain pursuant to a state agency's regulation under the guise that said records are held 'for' that agency" within the meaning of Public Officers Law §§86[4]; 87[2]; 89[3] [a]; Labor Law §§810, 813-a; [or] 12 NYCRR 601.1, 601.8 [c], [or] 601.14."

Accordingly, the Appellate Division held that Supreme Court should not have granted that part of the Plaintiff's petition as sought to require the Respondent to obtain and disclose the requested documents.

Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's decision.