96 N.Y.2d at 843 Determining statutory exemptions for government record disclosure12 citing cases“are specifically exempted from disclosure by state or federal statute.”
- Matter of Cordero v. Dist. Attorney of Erie Cnty., 185 A.D.3d 1450 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't 2020).published"All government records are presumptively open for public inspection unless specifically exempt from disclosure" by state or federal statute ( Matter of Karlin v McMahon , 96 NY2d 842, 843 [2001], rearg denied 98 NY2d 693 [2002], citing Pu…
- Matter of New York Civ. Liberties Union v. New York City Police Dept., 148 A.D.3d 642 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 2017).published The Court of Appeals subsequently reaffirmed this principle in Matter of Karlin v McMahon ( 96 NY2d 842, 843 [2001]), where the agency responding to a FOIL request invoked the statutory exemption for documents that tend to identify the vic…
- Matter of Xao He Lu v. New York City Police Dept., 143 A.D.3d 616 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 2016).publishedRespondent properly withheld these records in their entirety rather than disclosing redacted copies (see Matter of Karlin v McMahon, 96 NY2d 842, 843 [2001]).
- Matter of Mazza v. Vill. of Croton-on-Hudson, 140 A.D.3d 878 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2016).publishedCivil Rights Law § 50-b (1) provides a statutory exemption from disclosure for documents that tend to identify the victim of a sex offense (see Matter of Karlin v McMahon, 96 NY2d 842, 843 [2001]).
- Matter of Friedman v. Rice, 134 A.D.3d 826 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2015).publishedSince the majority determined that the confidentiality exemption applied, it did not go on to consider the other exemption invoked by the District Attorney, i.e., Public Officers Law § 87 (2) (a), which permits an agency to deny access to…
- MacKenzie v. Seiden, 106 A.D.3d 1140 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013).published However, “Civil Rights Law § 50-b (1) provides a statutory exemption from disclosure for documents that tend to identify the victim of a sex offense” (Matter of Karlin v McMahon, 96 NY2d 842, 843 [2001]; see Matter of Fappiano v New York C…
- Lesher v. Hynes, 80 A.D.3d 611 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2011).publishedCtr., 57 NY2d 399 )” (Matter of Karlin v McMahon, 96 NY2d 842, 843 [2001]).
- Matter of Xao He Lu v. Kings Cnty. Dist. Attorney, 217 A.D.3d 959 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2023).published"All government records are presumptively open for public inspection unless specifically exempt from disclosure" ( Matter of Crowe v Guccione , 171 AD3d 1170 , 1171 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Karlin v McMahon , 96 NY…
- MacKenzie v. Seiden, 128 A.D.3d 1291 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2015).published Ctr., 57 NY2d 399, 405-406 [1982]; see also Matter of Karlin v McMahon, 96 NY2d 842, 843 [2001]).
- Doyen v. McMahon, 306 A.D.2d 708 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2003).publishedUpon our review of the record, particularly the documents submitted for this Court’s in camera review, we agree with Supreme Court’s conclusion that respondent established upon remittal that he either did not possess the requested document…
Show 2 more citing cases
- Matter of Newsday, LLC v. Nassau Cnty. Police Dept., 222 A.D.3d 85 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2023).published
- Matter of New York Civ. Liberties Union v. New York City Police Dept., 118 N.E.3d 847 (N.Y. 2018).published
v.
James McMahon, as Superintendent of the New York State Police
[*843] OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, without costs, and the matter remitted to Supreme Court for further proceedings in accordance with this memorandum.
All government records are presumptively open for public inspection unless specifically exempt from disclosure by State or Federal statute (Public Officers Law § 87 [2]). Here, Civil Rights Law § 50-b (1) provides a statutory exemption from disclosure for documents that tend to identify the victim of a sex offense. Civil Rights Law § 50-b (2) (a), which allows disclosure of such documents to a person charged with a sex offense, does not apply to petitioner as he stands convicted following trial (see, Matter of Fappiano v New York City Police Dept., 95 NY2d 738). Nevertheless, the police must meet their burden of making a particularized showing that the statutory exemption from disclosure pursuant to Civil Rights Law § 50-b applies to all the records petitioner seeks (see, id.; Gould v New York City Police Dept., 89 NY2d 267). Accordingly, we remit the matter to Supreme Court for a determination whether the police have met this burden.
Additionally, insofar as the requested records are exempt from disclosure pursuant to State statute (Public Officers Law § 87 [2]; Civil Rights Law § 50-b [1]), the police are not obligated to provide the records even though redaction might remove all details which “tend to identify the victim” (see, Civil Rights Law § 50-b [1]; see also, Matter of Short v Board of Mgrs. of Nassau County Med. Ctr., 57 NY2d 399).
Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Smith, Levine, Ciparick, Wesley, Rosenblatt and Graffeo concur in memorandum.
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order reversed, etc.