Weston v. Sloan

• Decision Date: 06 December 1994
• Parties: , 643 N.E.2d 1071 In the Matter of Burton WESTON et al., Appellants, v. Steven SLOAN, as Secretary of the Senate, Respondent.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Page 255

619 N.Y.S.2d 255

84 N.Y.2d 462, 643 N.E.2d 1071

In the Matter of Burton WESTON et al., Appellants, v. Steven SLOAN, as Secretary of the Senate, Respondent.

Court of Appeals of New York.

Dec. 6, 1994.

[84 N.Y.2d 463] Michael J. Siris, Manhasset, for appellants.

[84 N.Y.2d 464] G. Oliver Koppell, Atty. Gen., Albany (Frank K. Walsh, Jerry Boone and Peter H. Schiff, of counsel), for respondent.

Andrew Greenblatt, New York City, for New York State Common Cause, amicus curiae.

OPINION OF THE COURT

SIMONS, Judge.

Petitioners are a registered voter and an unsuccessful candidate for the Seventh District State senatorial seat held in 1992 by Senator Michael J. Tully, Jr. They instituted this CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking judicial review of a determination by respondent Sloan, Secretary of the Senate, which denied their request for information concerning Senator Tully's publicly funded mailings. The issue presented is whether such information must be disclosed under the Freedom of Information Law (Public Officers Law § 88[2] [FOIL]. We conclude that such information is generally disclosable under FOIL and, therefore, that the order of the Appellate Division denying petitioners' relief should be modified.

On September 16, 1992, petitioner Weston requested from respondent Sloan, the Senate officer charged with responding to FOIL requests, the following records: the number of newsletters, bulk-rate mailings and first-class mailings sent by Senator Tully, either in his role as a Senator or a Committee Chairman, between January 1, 1991 and the date of the letter, and a copy of each; the total cost of postage for the newsletter, the bulk-rate mailings, and the first-class mailings; the total cost of printing and preparing the mailings; and, if any of the mailings were specifically targeted, the number of recipients and the election districts which were the targets. Respondent denied the request, asserting that the information was not available pursuant to FOIL. Upon administrative appeal, the Senate Majority Counsel sustained the denial, on the more particularized ground that the information requested was not specifically included in the list of legislative records available for public inspection and copying either under Public Officers Law § 88(2) or section 2 of the Rules and Regulations Relating to the Public Inspection and Copying of Legislative Records, the Senate rules promulgated to implement FOIL. This proceeding followed.

Supreme Court granted petitioners' application, annulling respondent's determination and directing that he provide the information requested. The court based its ruling on the general principle underlying FOIL: the presumption that the records of government should be accessible to the public under the public's inherent right to know the processes of government decision-making. The Appellate Division reversed, 201 A.D.2d 778, 607 N.Y.S.2d 478. It concluded that access to the records of the Legislature, as opposed to those of public agencies, is limited to the specific categories listed in section 88 of the Public Officers Law, and that no portion of the statute, or any other applicable provision of law, mandates disclosure of the information requested by petitioners.

The enactment of New York's Freedom of Information Law (Public Officers Law art. 6) in 1974 was the result of a legislative effort to increase the accountability of the government to its citizens by recognizing the public's "right to know" more about the operation of the government (Public Officers Law § 84). In the legislative declaration the act noted that "a free society is maintained when government is responsive and responsible to the public" and that "it is incumbent upon the state and its localities to extend public accountability wherever and whenever feasible" (id.). We have consistently interpreted the statute liberally to implement these broad purposes (see, Matter of Capital Newspapers v. Burns, 67 N.Y.2d 562, 565-567, 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, 79-80, 476 N.Y.S.2d 69, 464 N.E.2d 437; Matter of Washington Post Co. v. New York State Ins. Dept., 61 N.Y.2d 557, 564, 475 N.Y.S.2d 263, 463 N.E.2d 604).

Article 6 was reenacted in 1977 to expand the scope of FOIL and make presumptively available virtually all agency records unless otherwise specifically exempted (see, Public Officers Law § 87; Matter of Capital Newspapers v. Burns, supra, 67 N.Y.2d at 565-567, 505 N.Y.S.2d 576, 496 N.E.2d 665; Matter of Farbman & Sons v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., supra, 62 N.Y.2d at 79-80, 476 N.Y.S.2d 69, 464 N.E.2d 437). The 1977 legislation changed the format of the statute, however; while it expanded agency disclosure it excepted the Legislature and the judiciary from the definition of agencies (see, Letter of Senator Ralph J. Marino, Bill Jacket, L.1977, ch. 933; Public Officers Law § 86[3]. Instead, the Legislature added a new section 88 which provided for access under FOIL to certain specified State legislative records--the same types of records all agencies were required to provide under the more limited 1974 version of the statute. The effect of this was to make agency records more available to FOIL applicants but to retain the limitations on disclosure of legislative records unless disclosure was specifically authorized under the statute.

In this proceeding, petitioners rely on the language of section 88(2)(e) which authorizes disclosure of "internal or external audits and statistical or factual tabulations of, or with respect to, material otherwise available for public inspection and copying pursuant to this section or any other applicable provision of law". They contend the records sought are "statistical or factual tabulations" with respect to "material otherwise available for public inspection".

Analysis starts by noting that the Legislature in its declaration has recognized that documents and statistics are part of the basic information leading to governmental decisions (see, Public Officers Law § 84). Thus, it is understandable that it provided that "statistical or factual tabulations" are legislative materials which may be disclosed (see, Public Officers Law...