Konigsberg v. Coughlin

• Decision Date: 16 October 1986
• Citation: 68 N.Y.2d 245,508 N.Y.S.2d 393,501 N.E.2d 1
• Parties: , 501 N.E.2d 1 In the Matter of Harold KONIGSBERG, Appellant, v. Thomas A. COUGHLIN, III, as Commissioner of the New York State Department of Correctional Services, et al., Respondents.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Page 393

508 N.Y.S.2d 393

68 N.Y.2d 245, 501 N.E.2d 1

In the Matter of Harold KONIGSBERG, Appellant, v. Thomas A. COUGHLIN, III, as Commissioner of the New York State Department of Correctional Services, et al Respondents.

Court of Appeals of New York.

Argued Sept. 9, 1986.

Decided Oct. 16, 1986.

Robert Selcov, Poughkeepsie and David C. Leven, New York City, for appellant.

Robert Abrams, Atty. Gen. (Frank K. Walsh, O. Peter Sherwood and Peter H. Schiff, Albany, of counsel), for respondents.

OPINION OF THE COURT

WACHTLER, Chief Judge.

The dispositive issue on this appeal is whether petitioner "reasonably described" the documents to which he sought access under the Freedom of Information Law (Public Officers Law art. 6 ). Because respondents, the Commissioner of the Department of Correctional Services and the superintendent of petitioner's correctional facility, failed to establish that the demand was insufficient for purposes of enabling them to locate and identify the documents sought, we hold that petitioner's request satisfied the statutory standard (Public Officers Law § 89).

Petitioner, an inmate in the custody of the Department of Correctional Services (the Department), sought, pursuant to article 6 of the Public Officers Law, "to inspect and review any and all files or records kept on me and my number of identification of the New York State Department of Correctional Services which is identification number 71-A-0224". The inmate records coordinator asserted, in answer to this request, that petitioner "must 'reasonably identify' " the documents sought. Once petitioner identified the documents sought, according to the coordinator, the Department would determine whether denial of the request was warranted "under the provisions of * * * Public Officers Law, Section 87, Paragraph 2". The coordinator then suggested several means by which petitioner could more closely tailor his request--by stating "the name of document (if known), or the type of content, the approximate date, etc." The inmate records coordinator also furnished petitioner with the names of several folders that were "accessible" to him. Petitioner was not satisfied by this response and took an administrative appeal to the Department's Office of Counsel, which upheld the decision denying him access on the ground that the "request failed to reasonably describe the records sought as required by Public Officers Law § 89(3)".

Petitioner commenced this article 78 proceeding to annul respondents' determination denying his FOIL request. He also sought an order allowing him to inspect and review his institutional files except for those papers claimed to be exempt under FOIL, and requiring respondents to provide him with a list of documents that were withheld as exempt and to submit those documents to the court for an in camera inspection. Respondents' answer alleged, in essence, that their determination could not be termed arbitrary or capricious in light of the "voluminous" files on petitioner and his failure to provide a reasonable description of the documents he sought. Their answer, moreover, alleged that "many" documents likely were exempt pursuant to Public Officers Law § 87(2)(f) (records that if disclosed would endanger the life or safety of any person) and (g) (certain inter-agency or intra-agency materials).

In further support of their position, respondents submitted the affidavit of Berdelia Smith, the inmate records coordinator for the Department's Eastern Correctional Facility. Ms. Smith averred that "most" of that facility's inmate records contained material that was exempt from disclosure under FOIL and that it was necessary, in order to avoid "oppressive and disruptive administrative burdens and backlogs" that the person handling the FOIL request know "the specific records being sought". Ms. Smith claimed that the records located at petitioner's facility were "voluminous". Yet, at the same time, she acknowledged that respondents had managed to gather "95 percent of Petitioner's institutional records--comprised of central file, service unit folder, education folder, hospital records, grievance file, correspondence office file, and package room and visiting room documents".

Special Term, 124 Misc.2d 81, 475 N.Y.S.2d 714, was persuaded by respondents' arguments of administrative burden. The court dismissed the petition, finding that although respondents claimed the benefit of certain exemptions under FOIL, the agency was relieved from examining the documents it had thus far culled for the purposes of determining which documents were exempt until petitioner "reasonably described" those to which he sought access. The Appellate Division, 110 A.D.2d 1026, 488 N.Y.S.2d 314, affirmed on the ground that respondents' determination was not irrational in view of the requirements of FOIL that the records requested must be "reasonably described" and the Department's own regulation (7 NYCRR 5.11) that mirrors the statutory language.

On this appeal, petitioner argues that he satisfied the requirement of FOIL that the records to which he sought access be "reasonably described" (Public Officers Law § 89). We agree with his contention and therefore reverse.

I.

In Matter of Farbman & Sons v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 62 N.Y.2d 75, 476 N.Y.S.2d 69, 464 N.E.2d 437, we held that demands under FOIL need not meet the stringent requirement under CPLR 3120 that documents be "specifically designated" (id., at pp. 82-83, 476 N.Y.S.2d 69, 464 N.E.2d 437). We recognized that the requirement of Public Officers Law § 89(3) that documents be "reasonably described" was to enable the agency to locate the records in question (id., at p. 83, 476 N.Y.S.2d 69, 464 N.E.2d 437). Thus, we stated that the agency had to establish that "the descriptions were insufficient for purposes of locating and identifying the documents sought" (id.; see, Matter of Johnson Newspaper Corp. v. Stainkamp, 94 A.D.2d 825, 826, 463 N.Y.S.2d 122, mod. on other grounds 61 N.Y.2d 958, 475 N.Y.S.2d 272, 463 N.E.2d 613) before denying a FOIL request for reasons of overbreadth.

We are satisfied that the present FOIL request meets the standard set forth in Farbman, and conclude, accordingly, that respondents cannot evade the broad disclosure provisions of that statute (see, Matter of Capital Newspapers v. Burns, 67 N.Y.2d 562, 565-566, 505 N.Y.S.2d 576, 496 N.E.2d 665; Matter of Farbman & Sons v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 62 N.Y.2d 75, 79, 476 N.Y.S.2d 69, 464 N.E.2d 437, supra ) upon the naked allegation that the request will require review of thousands of records (Matter of Farbman & Sons v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 62 N.Y.2d 75, 83, 476 N.Y.S.2d 69, 464 N.E.2d 437, supra ). The affidavit of Ms. Smith, the inmate records coordinator, demonstrates that respondents were able to identify the documents to which petitioner sought access--namely, his institutional records, including, by Ms. Smith's own description, petitioner's "central file, service unit folder, education folder, hospital records, grievance file, correspondence office file, and package room and visiting room documents". Moreover, respondents were able to locate the documents petitioner had identified to the extent of amassing some 2,300 pages of record, which, Ms. Smith estimated, represented approximately 95% of petitioner's institutional records. These admissions seem to contradict respondents' protestations that they were not able to locate and identify the requested files. Accordingly, we conclude that respondents have failed to establish that the documents were not "reasonably described" (id.).

Respondents contend that in this instance they followed regulations promulgated under FOIL by the Committee on Open Government (21 NYCRR 1401.2 1401.2), which require that each agency designate one or more records access officers to "the requester in identifying requested records, if necessary". This argument misses the point, however,...