Quirk v. Evans

Decision Date27 May 1982
PartiesIn the Matter of the Application of Dennis W. QUIRK, individually and in his representative capacity as President of the New York State Court Officers Association; Owen K. Flynn, individually and in his representative capacity as President of the New York State Court Clerks Association; and Richard A. Corkum, individually and in his representative capacity as President of the Court Clerks Benevolent Association, Petitioners, v. Hon. Herbert B. EVANS, as Chief Administrative Judge of the Unified Court System of the State of New York, and in his representative capacity, Respondent.
CourtNew York Supreme Court

Phillips, Nizer, Benjamin, Krim & Ballon, New York City, for petitioners.

Paul A. Feigenbaum, New York City, for respondent.

MARTIN B. STECHER, Justice:

Petitioners are non-judicial employees of the Unified Court System and also serve as representatives of various unions representing court officers and court clerks. They bring this proceeding pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules to obtain a declaration that the Office of Court Administration is subject to the New York Freedom of Information Law and for related relief.

Respondent Evans, Chief Administrative Judge of the Unified Court System of the State of New York, moves to dismiss the petition on the ground that it fails to state a cause of action as a matter of law, in that FOIL does not apply to the Unified Court System; that petitioners have already been provided with the documents which would be available to them under FOIL; and petitioners have not exhausted their administrative remedies to gain access to the records which they seek.

Disposing of the simplest contention first, petitioners' status as members of the taxpaying public is separate and distinct from their status as participants in a pending administrative proceeding. The rights involved, and the remedies, are separate and distinct. Simply because a party is a litigant, or, by extension, involved in an administrative dispute, his rights under FOIL cannot be diminished. [Burke v. Yudelson, 51 A.D.2d 673, 378 N.Y.S.2d 165].

Respondent's contention that petitioners have received all documents to which they would be entitled should FOIL apply cannot be the end of the matter. Petitioner is not required to accept the assistant counsel's conclusion. Further, agencies subject to the provisions of FOIL are required, pursuant to Section 87(3)(c) of the Public Officers Law, to keep "a reasonably detailed current list, by subject matter, of all records in the possession of the agency, whether or not available under this article" so that the issue of entitlement is not limited by bureaucratic fiat. Since OCA contends it is not subject to FOIL, it has no such list, and petitioners have no way of verifying whether they have, in fact, received all of the records to which they would be entitled under the statute. Furthermore, the production of even voluminous documents cannot moot a proceeding to hold OCA obligated to abide by a law if, in fact, it applied.

This leaves only the question of whether OCA is one of "the courts of the state" and, as such, outside the scope of FOIL.

In Babigian v. Evans, 104 Misc.2d 140, 427 N.Y.S.2d 688, Justice Tyler examined the legislative policy which culminated in the enactment of FOIL. He rejected the contention of respondent Evans that the Office of Court Administration "is in all respects exempt from the Freedom of Information Law" Although a notice of appeal was filed on September 23, 1981, it does not appear that the appeal was perfected. In any event, it remains undecided. Furthermore, the issue submitted to Justice Tyler was not nearly so broad as the issue submitted here, as a consequence of which the learned Justice presented a narrow and limited holding. Under such circumstances, it would appear appropriate to decide the issue submitted on its own merits, drawing on Justice Tyler's persuasive opinion, rather than hold that the respondent is collaterally estopped to deny petitioner's contentions.

Respondent contends that the issue has been decided in its favor appeal dismissed, 49 N.Y.2d 800, 426 N.Y.S.2d 1030, 403 N.E.2d 467, leave to appeal denied, 51 N.Y.2d, 740, 432 N.Y.S.2d 362, 411 N.E.2d 781]. In Glatzer, petitioner sought directly from the Appellate Division via an Article 78 proceeding, certain administrative records from the Office of the Deputy Administrative Judge of the Civil Court. Numerous grounds for denial of the application were advanced including the statute of limitations. The Appellate Division dismissal, without opinion, made it impossible to determine whether the dismissal was on the merits for the reasons advanced here by the respondent, was for other reasons, or was because the petition was defective or the proceeding time-barred. Glatzer is without precedential value.

FOIL gives access to "agency" records. "Agency," as defined by the statute, excludes "the judiciary or the state legislature." "Judiciary" is, in turn, defined as "the courts of the state, including any municipal or district court, whether or not of record."

In determining the meaning of statutes, it is fundamental that ordinary words are to be given the meaning ordinarily ascribed to them. Associated words generally are to be construed in connection with, and with reference to, the phrases surrounding them. "Where the statute is clear and unambiguous on its face, the legislation must be interpreted as it exists" The Legislature, in enacting FOIL intended the phrase "courts of the state" to have its commonly understood meaning--tribunals adjudicating rights and status--and not the strained meaning advanced by respondent [Babigian v. Evans, supra].

Blackstone's definition of a court required the presence of at least three constituent parts, namely,

"The actor, or plaintiff, who complains of an injury done; the reus, or defendant, who is called upon to make satisfaction of it; and the judex, or judicial power, which is to examine the truth of the fact, to determine the law arising upon that fact, and, if any injury appears to have been done, to ascertain and by its officers to apply the remedy." [3 Bl.Comm. 25, cited in People ex rel. Pond v. Board of Trustees of Village of Saratoga Springs, 4 App.Div. 399, 39 N.Y.S. 607 (1896) ].

The functions of the Office of Court Administration, on the other hand, are largely concerned with the staffing and physical operation of the courts, as opposed to the adjudicatory functions of "the courts of the state, including any municipal or district court, whether or not of record." OCA conducts statistical studies of trial court workloads; conducts seminars and informational conferences for both judicial and non-judicial employees; handles assignments of staffing and projection of staffing needs of nonjudicial personnel; evaluates the administrative impact of legislation on the courts; provides budgetary assistance and projections; and, finally, is the repository of certain records kept in the course of judicial and related proceedings in the State. The latter function is hereafter referred to. That the chief administrator is himself a member of the judiciary is fortuitous only and hence irrelevant.

There is some judicial authority for the proposition that the Administrative Board of the Judicial Conference, most of whose powers devolved on the OCA and the Chief Administrator, was merely an administrative agency. Justice Silverman, formerly of this court, commended:

"Pursuant to section 28 of article VI of the State...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Goodwin v. Pretorius
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • March 22, 2013
    ...Salvador, 276 A.D.2d 1000, 1001, 714 N.Y.S.2d 812,lv. denied96 N.Y.2d 702, 722 N.Y.S.2d 794, 745 N.E.2d 1016;Matter of Quirk v. Evans, 116 Misc.2d 554, 556, 455 N.Y.S.2d 918). 3. We have previously addressed the erroneous statement regarding service,...
  • Clerk v. Freedom of Information Com'n
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • May 2, 2006
    ... ... In Quirk v. Evans, 116 Misc.2d 554, 555, 455 N.Y.S.2d 918 (1982), the petitioners sought certain information from the New York office of court administration ... ...
  • Michael v. Communications Workers of America AFL-CIO
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • October 25, 1985
    ... ... Lefkowitz, supra, 47 N.Y.2d at 572, 419 N.Y.S.2d 467, 393 N.E.2d 463, Quirk v. Evans, 116 Misc.2d 554, 455 N.Y.S.2d 918 ). Federal Courts have held that corporations lacked FOIA "standing" to assert a right of access to ... ...
  • Nast v. Michels, 51741-0
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • December 4, 1986
    ... ... Babigian ... Page 312 ... v. Evans, 104 Misc.2d 140, 427 N.Y.S.2d 688 (1980); Quirk v. Evans, 116 Misc.2d 554, 455 N.Y.S.2d 918 (1982). Therefore, whether or not Washington's ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT