Solutions Econ., LLC v. Long Island Power Auth.

• Decision Date: 05 July 2012
• Citation: 2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 05428,97 A.D.3d 593,948 N.Y.S.2d 100
• Parties: In the Matter of SOLUTIONS ECONOMICS, LLC, appellant, v. LONG ISLAND POWER AUTHORITY, respondent-respondent; ABB, Inc., intervenor-respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

97 A.D.3d 593
948 N.Y.S.2d 100
2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 05428

In the Matter of SOLUTIONS ECONOMICS, LLC, appellant,
v.
LONG ISLAND POWER AUTHORITY, respondent-respondent;
ABB, Inc., intervenor-respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

July 5, 2012.

[948 N.Y.S.2d 101]

Farrell Fritz, P.C., Uniondale, N.Y. (James M. Wicks and Kathryn C. Cole of counsel), for appellant.

Lazer Aptheker Rosella & Yedid, P.C., Melville, N.Y. (Zachary Murdock of counsel), for respondent-respondent.

Moses & Singer, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Steven R. Popofsky and Ellis & Winters, LLP [Lenor Marquis Segal and Jeffrey Young], of counsel), for intervenor-respondent.

REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., THOMAS A. DICKERSON, JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, and JEFFREY A. COHEN, JJ.

[97 A.D.3d 593]In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Long Island Power Authority dated July 1, 2010, denying the petitioner's administrative appeal seeking the disclosure of certain documents under the Freedom of Information Law (Public Officers Law art 6), the petitioner appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Adams, J.), entered March 14, 2011, as denied that branch of the petition which was for disclosure of certain financial data, and dismissed the proceeding.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.

Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Law (Public Officers Law art 6; hereinafter FOIL), the petitioner, Solutions Economics, LLC (hereinafter SE), sought disclosure of certain documents submitted to the respondent, Long Island Power Authority (hereinafter LIPA), in response to its requests for proposals for its Long Island Cable Replacement project (hereinafter the LIRC project). In accordance with FOIL 89(5), LIPA notified the companies which had submitted proposals that they would be given an opportunity to request continued confidential treatment of their submissions. Massachusetts [97 A.D.3d 594]Electric Construction Company (hereinafter Mass Electric) and its subcontractor, the intervenor ABB, Inc. (hereinafter ABB), sought continued confidential treatment for portions of Mass Electric's proposal. After reviewing these requests, LIPA agreed that continued confidential treatment was warranted and advised SE of its determination. SE challenged that determination in an administrative appeal, which LIPA denied.

SE sought judicial review of LIPA's determination via this CPLR article 78 proceeding. In the course of opposing this proceeding, LIPA produced several additional documents....