Дата публикации: 2017-10-10 12:29
Records sought not within control of agency other records, handwritten notes, found to be predecisional, deliberative material that could properly be withheld.
The “arbitrary and capricious” standard was applied as opposed to the FOIL “error of law” standard, but in a footnote, the court states that if the “error of law” standard had been used, the outcome would be no different.
Petitioner sought personnel records pertaining to herself court granted petition, found that agency''s failure to respond to the repeated illegal and contrary to law , and that denial must be specific. Also found that contention that request was not made to the records access officer was irrelevant, for respondent clearly represented at all times that petitioner was to communicate with the respondent to the exclusion of all others.
Petition dismissed on ground that disclosure would interfere with pending judicial proceeding and that administrative remedies not exhausted with respect to one of two requests. Cited Legal Aid v. NYPD.
Petitioner and wife were subject of tax audit and sought records relating to the audit. Were given approximately 8,555 pages of material, but portions withheld or redacted. Court reviewed material and found that some pages properly redacted, others consisting of factual information should be disclosed, citing Gould. Some materials also found to be confidential based on attorney-client privilege, §6968 of Tax Law, and 76 USC §6658(a), which prohibits state agencies from disclosing any federal return information.
Request involved a variety of records including NYC Board of Education Chancellor''s reports, unsatisfactory rating reports and Education Law §8575-a reports. Many of the records sought did not exist. Chancellor''s reports were found to be predecisional information that are not binding and therefore exempt as intra-agency material unsatisfactory rating reports also found to be deniable as intra-agency material as an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy also held that §8575-a reports are available where an employee has been found guilty.
Mayor&rsquo s cell phone bills found to be available, except portions indicating unlisted phone numbers that attorney&rsquo s fees would not be awarded, for agency had reasonable basis for redactions. Cited opinions of the Committee on Open Government.
Petitioner not injured by NYC agency&rsquo s failure to comply with own rule requiring determination within ten business days of acknowledgement held that training materials regarding canine could be withheld as non-routine criminal investigative techniques and procedures.
In addition to minor issues relating to fees for copies, court held that &ldquo in camera inspection of documents redacted as to names/addresses of witnesses/subjects/suspects unnecessary as defendant has satisfied its burden that such redactions are proper&rdquo , citing Davidson, Woods however, ordered that in camera inspection be made with respect to &ldquo redactions of information relating to non-routine investigatory techniques&rdquo .
Names and identification numbers of inmates who file grievances may be withheld as unwarranted invasion of privacy and because disclosure could endanger life or safety.