Scaccia v. New York State Div. of State Police

• Decision Date: 16 June 1988
• Citation: 138 A.D.2d 50,530 N.Y.S.2d 309
• Parties: In the Matter of Dante M. SCACCIA, Appellant, v. NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF STATE POLICE et al., Respondents.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 309

530 N.Y.S.2d 309

138 A.D.2d 50

In the Matter of Dante M. SCACCIA, Appellant, v. NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF STATE POLICE et al., Respondents.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division Third Department.

June 16, 1988.

Scaccia Law Firm (Robert A. Traylor, of counsel), Syracuse, for appellant.

Robert Abrams, Atty. Gen. (Nancy A. Spiegel, of counsel), Albany, for respondents.

Before CASEY, J.P., and WEISS, YESAWICH, LEVINE and MERCURE, JJ.

LEVINE, Justice.

According to the petition and other supporting papers, petitioner, an attorney, was criminally charged but acquitted after trial of aggravated harassment, allegedly consisting of making repeated "hang-up" telephone calls to a former girlfriend. Following acquittal, petitioner obtained an order sealing the records of the trial. Subsequently, an article appeared in a local newspaper reporting that, following an internal disciplinary proceeding, State Police Investigator Anthony Di Rienz had been found guilty of misconduct for having obtained petitioner's girlfriend's unlisted telephone number through the local police, ostensibly for legitimate investigative purposes, and turning over that information to petitioner. Di Rienz's immediate superior was quoted in the article. As a result of the newspaper article, petitioner sought certain information pursuant to the Freedom of Information Law (Public Officers Law art. 6) (hereinafter FOIL) from respondent Division of State Police. The information petitioner requested was:

1. Any and all records, statistical or factual tabulations of data of the number of days and dates Investigator Anthony Di Rienz was absent from his duties on sick leave, annual or vacation leave or without leave during the period January 1, 1985 through June 30, 1985.

2. Any and all decisions, reports, memoranda or dispositions constituting the final determination of the Division of State Police in the matter of the disciplinary action taken against Investigator Anthony Di Rienz for unlawfully or improperly obtaining and disclosing an unlisted telephone number * * * in or about the period January 1, 1985 through March 31, 1985.

3. The written report of accusation prepared relative to the above charge(s) pursuant to 9 NYCRR § 479.1, if any.

4. The statement of charges and specifications pursuant to 9 NYCRR § 479.5, if any.

5. The written notification of proposed imposition of penalty pursuant to 9 NYCRR § 479.3, if any.

The Division's records officer responded that item 4 was nonexistent and denied the four remaining requests. Following an affirmance of the denial by the Freedom of Information Appeals Board, petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding to review the determination. Supreme Court granted petitioner's request for the information set forth in item 1, but denied the remaining requests pursuant to Civil Rights Law § 50-a(1), which mandates the confidentially of "personnel records, used to evaluate performance toward continued employment or promotion". This appeal by petitioner ensued.

The issue on appeal is whether Supreme Court correctly ruled that the requested records of the Division concerning Di Rienz's disciplinary proceeding and its final disposition are exempt under FOIL. We sustain Supreme Court's ruling as to the written report of accusation pursuant to 9 NYCRR 479.1 and the written notification of proposed imposition of penalty pursuant to 9 NYCRR 479.3. As to the written report of accusation, 9 NYCRR 479.1 clearly shows that the document sought is a report of the internal investigation of the complaint against Di Rienz, including the names of the complainant and witnesses interviewed and their version of the facts. This information was properly withheld under the FOIL exemptions relating to data compiled for law enforcement purposes (Public Officers Law § 87), or as predecisional, intra-agency materials (Public Officers Law § 87). The report of accusation herein is indistinguishable from that of the complaints of misconduct, nondisclosure of which was upheld on the foregoing grounds in Matter of Gannett Co. v. James, 86 A.D.2d 744, 745, 447 N.Y.S.2d 781, lv. denied 56 N.Y.2d 502, 450 N.Y.S.2d 1023, 435 N.E.2d 1099. The application of these exemptions in Gannett as to complaints against police officers was expressly approved by the Court of Appeals in Matter of Capital Newspapers Div. of Hearst Corp. v. Burns, 67 N.Y.2d 562, 569, 505 N.Y.S.2d 576, 496 N.E.2d 665.

Denial of the disclosure as to the written notification of proposed imposition of penalty pursuant to 9 NYCRR 479.3 was likewise proper. Under the cited regulation, as applicable to the Di Rienz disciplinary proceeding, the document sought represented an intermediate step leading to a decision to proceed to a formal disciplinary hearing. Thus, this information is clearly intra-agency and predecisional, exempt under Public Officers Law § 87(2)(g) ( see, Kheel v. Ravitch, 93 A.D.2d 422, 427-428, 462 N.Y.S.2d 182, affd. 62 N.Y.2d 1, 475 N.Y.S.2d 814, 464 N.E.2d 118; Sinicropi v. County of Nassau, 76 A.D.2d 832, 833, 428 N.Y.S.2d 312, lv. denied 51 N.Y.2d 704, 432 N.Y.S.2d 1028, 411 N.E.2d 797). Contrary to petitioner's contention on appeal, any unauthorized disclosure made by a subordinate officer of the State Police concerning the Di Rienz disciplinary matter does not operate as a waiver by respondents of the FOIL exemptions ( see, Granada Bldgs. v. City of Kingston, 58 N.Y.2d 705, 708, 458 N.Y.S.2d 906, 444 N.E.2d 1325).

We reach a conclusion contrary to that of Supreme Court with respect to petitioner's request for documents "constituting the final determination" of the disciplinary action against Di Rienz. The information sought is not immune from disclosure as intra-agency...