Thomas v. N.Y.C. Dep't of Educ.

• Decision Date: 19 February 2013
• Citation: 2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 01026,103 A.D.3d 495,962 N.Y.S.2d 29
• Parties: In re Michael P. THOMAS, Petitioner–Appellant, v. NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, et al., Respondents–Respondents.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

103 A.D.3d 495

962 N.Y.S.2d 29

2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 01026

In re Michael P. THOMAS, Petitioner–Appellant,

v.NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, et al., Respondents–Respondents.

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

Feb. 19, 2013.

Hagan, Coury & Associates, Brooklyn (Paul Golden of counsel), for appellant.

Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Elizabeth I. Freedman of counsel), for respondents.

MAZZARELLI, J.P., ANDRIAS, DeGRASSE, RICHTER, CLARK, JJ.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Geoffrey D. Wright, J.), entered April 9, 2012, denying the petition seeking to compel respondents to disclose documents requested by petitioner pursuant to the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL), and dismissing the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the proceeding reinstated, and the matter remanded for an in camera inspection of the requested documents to determine if redaction could strike an appropriate balance between personal privacy and public policy interests, and whether respondents otherwise assert applicable FOIL exemptions.

Petitioner is a public school teacher employed by the Manhattan Center for Science and Mathematics (MCSM), which allegedly receives funds under Title I, Part A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), reauthorized as the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (20 USC § 6301 et seq.). In August 2010, pursuant to the “No Child Left Behind Written Complaint and Appeal Procedures” adopted by the New York State Education Department, petitioner filed a complaint against the administrators of MCSM alleging that: “1. the [school's] 2009–2010 Comprehensive Educational Plan (CEP) was not developed with the involvement of parents and other members of the school community as required by Section 1114(b)(2)(B)(ii) of Title I, Part A of the ESEA; 2. required components of a schoolwide program that address the needs of at-risk students were not implemented as required by Section 1114(b)(2) and Section 1118 of Title I, Part A of the ESEA; 3. Title I funds were misappropriatedand were not used to implement the components of a schoolwide program as required by Section 1114(b)(2)(A)(ii) of Title I, Part of the ESEA; and 4. the 2010–2011 CEP did not exist as required by Section 1114(b)(2)(B)(ii) of Title I, Part A of the ESEA.”

Respondent New York City Department of Education (DOE) referred the complaint to its Office of Special Investigations (OSI). After OSI found the allegations to be unsubstantiated, petitioner filed a FOIL request seeking the investigative report and related documents.

DOE's Central Record Access Officer (CRAO) denied the FOIL request pursuant to Public Officers Law § 87(2)(b) on the ground that all of the OSI records were exempt from disclosure because they related to unsubstantiated allegations of misconduct and their release would constitute an unwarranted invasion of the personal privacy of the employees in question. Respondent Michael Best, General Counsel of DOE, denied petitioner's administrative appeal, finding that the CRAO's determination fell “well within the bounds” of the Committee on Open Government's published advisory opinions denying FOIL requests in the context of unsubstantiated complaints, and that redaction of identifying details would not protect the personal privacy of the subject individuals because petitioner filed the underlying complaint and therefore knew the identity of the persons whose details he would have DOE delete.

The No Child Left Behind Written Complaint and Appeal Procedures expressly contemplate FOIL requests for Investigative Reports, stating as follows: “Does the State Education Department maintain a record of all complaints/appeals? Yes. Copies of correspondence, related documents, investigative reports, and summary reports involved in the complaint/appeal resolution will be maintained by the State Education Department for five years. Records will be made available to interested parties in accordance with the provisions of the New York State Freedom of Information Law (Public Officers Law Sections 84–89).”

Pursuant to FOIL, government records are presumptively available to the public unless they are statutorily exempted by Public Officers Law § 87(2) ( see Matter of Fappiano v. New York City Police Dept., 95 N.Y.2d 738, 746, 724 N.Y.S.2d 685, 747 N.E.2d 1286 [2001] ). “Those exemptions are to be narrowly construed, with the burden resting on the agency to demonstrate that the requested material indeed qualifies for exemption” (Matter of Hanig v. State of N.Y. Dept. of Motor Vehs., 79 N.Y.2d 106, 109, 580 N.Y.S.2d 715, 588 N.E.2d 750 [1992] ).

Public Officers Law § 87(2)(b) permits an agency to deny accessto a document, or portion of a document, if disclosure “would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” “What constitutes an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy is measured by what would be offensive and objectionable to a reasonable [person] of ordinary sensibilities” (Matter of Beyah v. Goord, 309 A.D.2d 1049, 1050, 766 N.Y.S.2d 222 [3d Dept. 2003] [internal quotation marks omitted] ).

“Public Officers Law § 89(2)(b) says that an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy includes, but shall not be limited to seven specified kinds of disclosure. In a case, like this one, where none of the seven specifications is applicable, a court must decide whether any invasion of privacy ... is unwarranted by balancing the privacy interests at stake against the public interest in [the] disclosure of the information” (Matter of Harbatkin v. New York City Dept. of Records & Info. Servs., 19 N.Y.3d 373, 380, 948 N.Y.S.2d 220, 971 N.E.2d 350 [2012] [internal quotation marks omitted] ). However, the section does not create a blanket exemption. Public Officers Law § 89(2)(c)(i) provides that “[u]nless otherwise provided by this article, disclosure shall not be construed to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy pursuant to paragraphs (a) and (b) of this subdivision: ... when identifying details are deleted.”

The federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (the NCLB) states as follows: “The purpose of this subchapter [20 USC § 6301 et seq.] is to ensure that all children have a fair, equal, and significant opportunity to obtain a high-quality education and reach, at a minimum, proficiency on challenging State academic achievement standards and state [ sic ] academic assessments” (20 USC § 6301). Based on the theory that poverty and low scholastic achievement are closely related, Subchapter I, Part A, of the NCLB, titled “Improving Basic Programs Operated by Local Educational Agencies,” provides federal grants-in-aid to support compensatory education for disadvantaged children in low-income areas.

Petitioner's FOIL request sought the investigation report relating to his complaint against the administrators of MCSM, alleging that, in violation of the ESEA, the school's CEP was not developed with the involvement of parents and other members of the school community, that required components of the CEP were not implemented, and that Title I funds were misappropriated. Issues involving the expenditure of education funds and the quality of education, and why a government agency determined that a complaint concerning a violation of federal law relating thereto is allegedly unsubstantiated, are of significant public interest.

Despite this significant public interest, respondents denied the FOIL request in its entirety, with respondent Best citing a published advisory opinion of the Committee on Open Government, which states that ...