Domestic Violence Services of Greater New Haven, Inc. v. Freedom of Information Com'n
Decision Date | 04 February 1997 |
Docket Number | No. 15407,15407 |
Citation | 688 A.2d 314,240 Conn. 1 |
Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
Parties | DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SERVICES OF GREATER NEW HAVEN, INC. v. FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION et al. |
Victor R. Perpetua, Hartford, with whom, on the brief, was Mitchell W. Pearlman, General Counsel, for appellant (named defendant).
Patricia E. Reilly, New Haven, for appellee (plaintiff).
Before CALLAHAN, C.J., and BERDON, NORCOTT, PALMER and PETERS, JJ.
The sole issue in this certified appeal is whether the appeal of the named defendant, the freedom of information commission (FOIC), should have been dismissed by the Appellate Court on mootness grounds. The dispute in this administrative appeal arises out of a request for corporate documents by the defendant Ellen Andrews (complainant) from the plaintiff, Domestic Violence Services of Greater New Haven, Inc. The plaintiff denied the complainant's request for the documents on the ground that it was not a public agency within the provisions of General Statutes § 1-18a 1 of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Although the documents were voluntarily furnished to the complainant, the FOIC nonetheless proceeded with a contested hearing to determine whether the plaintiff was a public agency. 2 After deciding that the plaintiff was a public agency, the FOIC then found that the plaintiff's voluntary disclosure had been untimely and ordered the plaintiff, in the future, to comply promptly with other disclosure requests. The plaintiff appealed to the Superior Court, which sustained the plaintiff's appeal. The FOIC then appealed the reversal of its decision to the Appellate Court, which, sua sponte, raised the issue of whether the FOIC was seeking an advisory opinion because the issue was moot. After a hearing, the Appellate Court dismissed the defendant's appeal. We granted the defendant's petition for certification to appeal from the Appellate Court. 3 We now reverse.
The undisputed facts are as follows. On December 10, 1993, the complainant made a written request to the plaintiff for certain corporate documents, including its annual report, budget and bylaws. On December 15, 1993, the plaintiff's executive director refused to provide the complainant with the requested documents. On December 20, 1993, the complainant filed a complaint with the FOIC that requested it to order the disclosure. The FOIC sent a notice to the parties scheduling a hearing to be conducted on March 3, 1994. On February 28, 1994, the plaintiff voluntarily delivered the requested documents to the complainant. In a cover letter, the plaintiff's attorney stated that
Notwithstanding the voluntary disclosure, the FOIC proceeded with a contested hearing on March 31, 1994. 4 After the hearing, it determined that the plaintiff was a public agency pursuant to the FOIA and that, although the documents had been furnished to the complainant prior to the hearing, the documents had not been provided promptly. 5 The FOIC ordered the plaintiff to comply strictly with the provisions of the FOIA in the future. The plaintiff appealed from the decision of the FOIC to the Superior Court pursuant to General Statutes §§ 1-21i(d) 6 and 4-183 7 on the ground that the FOIC had improperly found that the plaintiff was a public agency. The Superior Court found that the plaintiff was not a public agency and, therefore, reversed the decision of the FOIC. Thereafter, the FOIC, pursuant to § 1-21i(d), 8 appealed the reversal of its decision to the Appellate Court, which dismissed the appeal.
The plaintiff argues that the Appellate Court properly dismissed the FOIC's appeal as an attempt to secure an advisory opinion because the documents had already been turned over to the complainant and, therefore, no practical relief could be granted on appeal. We disagree.
The decision of the Appellate Court to dismiss this appeal as seeking an advisory opinion is predicated on mootness. (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Board of Education v. New Haven, 221 Conn. 214, 216, 602 A.2d 1018 (1992). (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Crest Pontiac Cadillac, Inc. v. Hadley, 239 Conn. 437, 439 n. 3, 685 A.2d 670 (1996).
General Statutes §§ 1-15 and 1-19(a) both provide in pertinent part that requested public records must be provided promptly. Section 1-19(a) provides that "all records maintained or kept on file by any public agency ... shall be public records and every person shall have the right to inspect such records promptly during regular office or business hours or to receive a copy of such records in accordance with the provisions of section 1-15...." (Emphasis added.) Section 1-15(a), the provision that is applicable to the complainant's request, provides that "[a]ny person applying in writing shall receive, promptly upon request, a plain or certified copy of any public record...." (Emphasis added.) General Statutes § 1-21i(b)(1) provides in pertinent part that "[a]ny person denied the right to inspect or copy records under section 1-19 or wrongfully denied the right to attend any meeting of a public agency or denied any other right conferred by sections 1-15 [or] ... 1-19 ... may appeal therefrom to the [FOIC] by filing a notice of appeal with said commission...."
Because the complainant, at the hearing, claimed that the documents were not provided to her within a "reasonable time," and the evidence supported her claim, the FOIC found that the plaintiff "violated §§ 1-15 and 1-19(a) ... when it failed to promptly provide the complainant with a copy of the [requested] records...." 9 Indeed, the documents were not provided to the complainant until almost three months after her initial request and only three days before the scheduled FOIC hearing. Accordingly, the plaintiff was found to have violated the FOIA by failing to make available the requested documents in a prompt manner.
Furthermore, the order issued by the FOIC was prospective in nature and impacts the obligations of the plaintiff in the future with respect to disclosure requests from members of the public. The FOIC's order in this case stated: "Henceforth, [the plaintiff] shall strictly comply with the provisions of the FOIA." Regarding this type of order, Gifford v. Freedom of Information Commission, 227 Conn. 641, 649 n. 9, 631 A.2d 252 (1993), is instructive. Gifford involved the issue of whether a chief of police had to provide a copy of an arrest report to a newspaper reporter pursuant to the FOIA. This court noted that Id., at 648-49, 631 A.2d 252. In Gifford, even though the requested document was released to the public before the FOIC's final decision was released, we agreed with the trial court's conclusion that the appeal was not moot. We stated that "[t]he order issued by the commission is prospective in nature and impacts the discovery obligations of the state's attorneys in pending criminal matters." Id., at 649 n. 9, 631 A.2d 252; see Glastonbury Education Assn. v. Freedom of Information Commission, 234 Conn. 704, 707 n. 3, 663 A.2d 349 (1995) (); see also Board of Pardons v. Freedom of Information Commission, 210 Conn. 646, 650, 556 A.2d 1020 (1989) ( ). The present appeal presents the same prospective order. For this reason, and because the FOIC determined that the plaintiff had not provided the documents promptly, the controversy before the FOIC was not moot. Consequently, the appeal before the Appellate Court...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Jerzy G.
...an advisory opinion, instead of adjudicating an actual, justiciable controversy. Domestic Violence Services of Greater New Haven, Inc. v. Freedom of Information Commission, 240 Conn. 1, 6, 688 A.2d 314 (1997). Because mootness implicates the court's subject matter jurisdiction, it raises a ......
-
Packer v. Board of Educ. of Town of Thomaston
...entertain the appeal." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Domestic Violence Services of Greater New Haven, Inc. v. Freedom of Information Commission, 240 Conn. 1, 6-7, 688 A.2d 314 (1997). "[U]nder the law of this state the courts may not be used as a vehicle to obtain j......
-
Dept. of Pub. Safety v. Foi Com'n
...as to whether that doctrine applies to proceedings before the commission. In Domestic Violence Services of Greater New Haven, Inc. v. Freedom of Information Commission, 240 Conn. 1, 688 A.2d 314 (1997), our Supreme Court addressed the question of whether the doctrine of mootness deprived th......
-
IN RE ALLISON
...& Zoning Commission, 256 Conn. 249, 256, 773 A.2d 300 (2001) (aggrievement); Domestic Violence Services of Greater New Haven, Inc. v. Freedom of Information Commission, 240 Conn. 1, 6, 688 A.2d 314 (1997) (mootness). Because "[a] possible absence of subject matter jurisdiction must be addre......