Bloomberg v. Hennessy
| Decision Date | 27 March 1979 |
| Citation | 417 N.Y.S.2d 593,99 Misc.2d 958 |
| Parties | Morris J. BLOOMBERG, for Access to Certain Papers, Petitioner, v. William C. HENNESSY, Commissioner, Constituting the Department of Transportation, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
The petitioner is a practicing attorney representing two infant plaintiffs, pedestrians struck by moving trains. Pursuant to Article 78 of the CPLR, the petitioner is seeking an order compelling the respondent, the Commissioner of Transportation, to turn over or to allow the petitioner access to certain information and reports within his possession.
By letter dated June 28, 1978, the petitioner requested access to reports made by the respondent concerning the accidents in which the petitioner's clients sustained their injuries. The request was predicated on the Freedom of Information Law (Pub.O.L., §§ 84-90). By letter dated July 3, 1978, the respondent's official in charge of records refused to release the information and indicated that written appeal might be had by further correspondence to the respondent. A further appeal was made, and the respondent affirmed the decision to refuse access to the reports by letter dated July 26, 1978.
The respondent contends that access to the records concerning these accidents is exempt from disclosure under Transportation Law § 117 and Public Officers Law § 87(2).
Transportation Law § 117 reads as follows:
Public Officers Law § 87(2)(a) reads as follows: "Each agency shall, in accordance with its published rules, make available for public inspection and copying all records, except that such agency may deny access to records or portions thereof that: (a) are specifically exempted from disclosure by state or federal statute . . . ."
The petitioner concedes that the "notice" or report of the common carrier is clearly exempt from disclosure under Transportation Law § 117 and continues to be exempt even under the Freedom of Information Law (Pub.O.L., § 87(2)(a). But the petitioner contends that the report of the respondent, if there be one, is not exempt under § 117. Therefore, the petitioner claims that under the Freedom of Information Law, he is entitled to examine or receive a copy of the respondent's report.
The respondent, relying on three cases, contends that both the "notice" or report of the carrier and his report, if there be one, are exempt (Linton v. Lehigh Valley Railroad Co., 25 A.D.2d 334, 269 N.Y.S.2d 490; Matter of Friedman v. Burritt, 195 Misc. 376, 90 N.Y.S.2d 755; Matter of Zuppa v. Maltbie, 190 Misc. 778, 76 N.Y.S.2d 577).
The holding in Linton is limited solely to the report prepared by the carrier and submitted to the predecessor of the respondent, the Public Service Commission.
Similarly, the Zuppa decision does not stand for the proposition that any report made by the respondent is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Journal Pub. Co. v. Office of Special Prosecutor
...has been directed by the courts. See e.g., Dowling v. State of New York, 49 A.D.2d 982, 374 N.Y.S.2d 148; Matter of Bloomberg v. Hennessy, 99 Misc.2d 958, 417 N.Y.S.2d 593; Matter of Edward Dwyer, 85 Misc.2d 104, 378 N.Y.S.2d 894. See also Siegel, Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons. Law......
-
Table of Cases
...& Krup Appliance Corp. v. A.H.C. Appliance Corp., NYLJ, December 9, 2003, p 20, col 3 (Dist Ct Nassau Co), §6:261 Bloomberg v. Hennessy , 99 Misc2d 958, 417 NYS2d 593 (Sup Ct Albany Co. 1979), §24:43 C-13 taBle oF Cases Bloomer v. Altman , 264 AD2d 795, 695 NYS2d 398 (2d Dept 1999), §3:76 B......
-
Table of Cases
...& Krup Appliance Corp. v. A.H.C. Appliance Corp., NYLJ, December 9, 2003, p 20, col 3 (Dist Ct Nassau Co), §6:261 Bloomberg v. Hennessy , 99 Misc2d 958, 417 NYS2d 593 (Sup Ct Albany Co. 1979), §24:43 Bloomer v. Altman , 264 AD2d 795, 695 NYS2d 398 (2d Dept 1999), §3:76 Bloomfield v. Bloomfi......
-
All Discovery
...whether the privilege applies, a court may resolve the issue by permitting an in camera review of the material. [ Bloomberg v. Hennessy , 99 Misc2d 958, 417 NYS2d 593, 594-95 (Sup Ct Albany Co 1979).] In a judicial proceeding, the judge, jurors, attorneys, parties as well as witnesses are p......
-
All Discovery
...whether the privilege applies, a court may resolve the issue by permitting an in camera review of the material. [ Bloomberg v. Hennessy , 99 Misc2d 958, 417 NYS2d 593, 594-95 (Sup Ct Albany Co 1979).] In a judicial proceeding, the judge, jurors, attorneys, parties as well as witnesses are p......