CIV. UNION v. Schenectady
| Decision Date | 29 June 2004 |
| Citation | 814 N.E.2d 437,781 N.Y.S.2d 267,2 N.Y.3d 657 |
| Parties | In the Matter of NEW YORK CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, Appellant, v CITY OF SCHENECTADY et al., Respondents. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
William Schurtman, Albany, for appellant.
Alfred L. Goldberger, Corporation Counsel, Schenectady (L. John Van Norden of counsel), for respondent.
McNamee, Lochner, Titus & Williams, P.C., Albany (Michael J. Grygiel and Mathew P. Barry of counsel), for New York Newspaper Publishers Association, Inc., and others, amici curiae.
The question before us is whether "[i]ncident reports prepared by [Schenectady] police officers pertaining to use of force" are subject to production pursuant to a Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) request made by petitioner New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU). The muddled history of this case determines our answer to that question.
On April 24, 2000—more than four years ago—the NYCLU sent a FOIL request to the City of Schenectady requesting (among other things) "[a]ll documents, memoranda, reports and/or other writings referencing . . . [u]se of force by police officers against civilians." The City responded that the request was "too broad," and the NYCLU thereafter limited its request to "[i]ncident reports prepared by police officers pertaining to use of force." The City made no response. The NYCLU then filed an appeal with the Mayor, as the Records Access Appeals Officer (see Public Officers Law § 89). The City again made no response and, on May 7, 2001, the Department of State Committee on Open Government issued an Advisory Opinion concluding that the City had failed to comply with FOIL.
With still no response, on August 1, 2001 the NYCLU filed this CPLR article 78 proceeding alleging that the City violated FOIL by neither producing the requested records nor submitting a particularized, specific justification for its failure to do so. The City then produced certain documents including Police Objective Review Committee's Annual Reports for 1999 and 2000 and offered to provide access to the Corporation Counsel's "Claim Book" listing all filed claims.
Before Supreme Court, the City represented that the records being sought were "of the same type" as those sought in Matter of Gannett Co. v James (86 AD2d 744 [4th Dept 1982], lv denied 56 NY2d 502 [1982]) where the "Use of Force" form utilized by the Rochester Police Department was exempt from FOIL disclosure. Citing Gannett, Supreme Court agreed that the City was not required to produce the incident reports because "case authority squarely holds that incident reports prepared by police officers detailing use of force are exempt from disclosure under Public Officers Law § 87 (2) (g)." Before the Appellate Division, the City again argued that the Schenectady use of force form was "essentially identical" to the form used in Gannett and therefore production was not required. The Appellate Division affirmed, concluding that "the Court of Appeals' decision in [Matter of Gould v New York City Police Dept., 89 NY2d 267 (1996)
] neither erodes nor overrules the Fourth Department's holding in Gannett Co." (306 AD2d 784, 786 [3d Dept 2003].) We granted the NYCLU leave to appeal (1 NY3d 503 [2003]).
After the NYCLU's brief was filed, the City informed this Court by letter that it had discovered "a misunderstanding of the record." Supported by the affidavit of the Police Chief enclosed with its letter, the City represented to us that it Additionally, the City wrote us, "the present Administration would have likely agreed to disclosure of use of force materials, redacted to safeguard exempt information, or to an in camera review by Supreme Court." The Police Chief's affidavit, however, further states that "searching the thousands of such reports each year to determine whether any reference to the use of force is entered therein would present a considerable burden on the personnel of my department."
The NYCLU countered that it had been given a "runaround for the past four years," and asks us to order production subject to an in camera inspection of records as to which an exemption is claimed. The City's brief before this Court—completed after its representation that it does not have any use of force forms— continues to address the theoretical issue regarding whether use of force forms are exempt from disclosure.
The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gannett Satellite Info. Network, Inc. v. Cnty. of Putnam
...at Cornell Univ., 4 N.Y.3d 225, 230, 792 N.Y.S.2d 370, 825 N.E.2d 585 ; Matter of New York Civ. Liberties Union v. City of Schenectady, 2 N.Y.3d 657, 661, 781 N.Y.S.2d 267, 814 N.E.2d 437 ). There are exemptions, for example, where access to the records are exempted from disclosure pursuant......
-
Initiative v.
...an agency's justification for non-disclosure must be “particularized and specific” ( New York Civ. Liberties Union v. City of Schenectady, 2 N.Y.3d 657, 661, 781 N.Y.S.2d 267 [2004] ). While FOIL provides that an agency may withhold records if it demonstrates the possibility that disclosure......
-
Livson v. Town of Greenburgh
...v. Empire State Dev. Corp., 13 N.Y.3d 882, 885, 893 N.Y.S.2d 825, 921 N.E.2d 592 ; Matter of New York Civ. Liberties Union v. City of Schenectady, 2 N.Y.3d 657, 661, 781 N.Y.S.2d 267, 814 N.E.2d 437 ). “Conclusory assertions that certain records fall within a statutory exemption are not suf......
-
Hashmi v. N.Y.C. Police Dep't
...must articulate a “particularized and specific justification” for nondisclosure. (Matter of New York Civil Liberties Union v. City of Schenectady, 2 N.Y.3d 657, 661, 781 N.Y.S.2d 267, 814 N.E.2d 437 [2004]citing Matter of Gould v. New York City Police Dep't, 89 N.Y.2d 267, 274–275, 653 N.Y.......