Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
6 New York opinions name it 5 courts 2015–2019 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New York courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
John P. v. Whalengreen2 sentences2017The letter informed petitioner that the information he requested was only being shared with the Advisory Panel because its members had sworn an oath of confidentiality and were operating "as an extension of [the prosecutor's] office." As a general matter, the letter went on, the documents he sought were "not available to the general public," were "confidential under Civil Rights Law § 50-b," and so were "not available to you or others who seek them under FOIL." As a ***474 member of the general public-which is, as we have long maintained, the status of anyone seeking documents under FOIL ( see 2017The letter informed petitioner that the information he requested was only being shared with the Advisory Panel because its members had sworn an oath of confidentiality and were operating "as an extension of [the prosecutor's] office." As a general matter, the letter went on, the documents he sought were "not available to the general public," were "confidential under Civil Rights Law § 50-b," and so were "not available to you or others who seek them under FOIL." As a ***474 member of the general public-which is, as we have long maintained, the status of anyone seeking documents under FOIL ( see | 1 | 2 |
Dunnigan v. Waverly Police Departmentgreen1 sentence2015(See People v James, 46 Misc 3d 1219[A] , 2015 NY Slip Op 50125[U] [Sup Ct, Kings County 2015]; compare Telesford v Patterson, 27 AD3d 328 [1st Dept 2006] [where inmate seeking FOIL information on a police officer was obligated to notify police officer prior to any in camera review of personnel records]; Blanco v County of Suffolk, 2006 NY Slip Op 30583 [U], *3 [Sup Ct, Suffolk County, Nov. 9, 2006] [where party bringing civil action for assault seeking employment and internal affairs investigation records was required to give notice to officers because “police officers who are the subject of | 1 | 1 |
Telesford v. Pattersongreen1 sentence2015(See People v James, 46 Misc 3d 1219[A] , 2015 NY Slip Op 50125[U] [Sup Ct, Kings County 2015]; compare Telesford v Patterson, 27 AD3d 328 [1st Dept 2006] [where inmate seeking FOIL information on a police officer was obligated to notify police officer prior to any in camera review of personnel records]; Blanco v County of Suffolk, 2006 NY Slip Op 30583 [U], *3 [Sup Ct, Suffolk County, Nov. 9, 2006] [where party bringing civil action for assault seeking employment and internal affairs investigation records was required to give notice to officers because “police officers who are the subject of | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Daily Gazette Co. v. City of Schenectady
green
2 sentences2018Much like the disciplinary records shielded from disclosure in Daily Gazette , the documents at issue here are " 'the very sort of record' " presenting a potential for abusive exploitation and intended to be kept confidential under Civil Rights Law § 50-a ( Daily Gazette , 93 NY2d at 159 , quoting Prisoners' Legal Servs. , 73 NY2d at 31 ). 2018Because disclosure of the requested material in Daily Gazette presented "the risk of its use to embarrass or humiliate the officers involved," the documents remained confidential pursuant to Civil Rights Law § 50-a ( Daily Gazette , 93 NY2d at 159 ). | 2 | 2018–2019 |
Matter of New York Civ. Liberties Union v. New York City Police Dept.
green
2 sentences2019Liberties Union v New York City Police Dept. , 32 NY3d 556, 564 ; Matter of Daily Gazette Co. v City of Schenectady , 93 NY2d 145, 159 ). 2018Second, the records in these cases involved countervailing interests not implicated by disclosure of Civil Rights Law § 50-a personnel records—e.g. the trauma an individual may suffer from knowing their medical records have been disclosed, even if anonymously—that should be considered when balancing the purpose of FOIL ( Short , 57 NY2d at 406 n 3 [noting that the Court could not assume that protecting the confidentiality of the identity of{**32 NY3d at 587} patients was the exclusive motivation for the statutory exemption]). | 2 | 2018–2019 |
Prisoners' Legal Services v. New York State Department of Correctional Services
green
2 sentences2018Much like the disciplinary records shielded from disclosure in Daily Gazette , the documents at issue here are " 'the very sort of record' " presenting a potential for abusive exploitation and intended to be kept confidential under Civil Rights Law § 50-a ( Daily Gazette , 93 NY2d at 159 , quoting Prisoners' Legal Servs. , 73 NY2d at 31 ). 2018Much like the disciplinary records shielded from disclosure in Daily Gazette , the documents at issue here are " 'the very sort of record' " presenting a potential for abusive exploitation and intended to be kept confidential under Civil Rights Law § 50-a ( Daily Gazette , 93 NY2d at 159 , quoting Prisoners' Legal Servs. , 73 NY2d at 31 ). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Karlin v. McMahon
green
1 sentence2018Short concerned a request for copies of 29 abortion records and required interpretation of three statutes that exempted medical information from disclosure, [FN3] and Karlin considered a request for records identifying a victim of sexual assault, which are confidential under Civil Rights Law § 50-b ( see Short , 57 NY2d 403 ; Karlin , 96 NY2d at 843 ). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Padmore v. New York City Department of Building
green
1 sentence2016(See Ciaravino v City of New York, 110 AD3d at 511-512 ; Green v City of New York, 106 AD3d at 454 .) The absence of such a showing precludes respondents from establishing that they were prejudiced by any delay in learning the injury location, as is required to defeat the petition to supply that omitted information under General Municipal Law § 50-e (6). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Ciaravino v. City of New York
green
1 sentence2016(See Ciaravino v City of New York, 110 AD3d at 511-512 ; Green v City of New York, 106 AD3d at 454 .) The absence of such a showing precludes respondents from establishing that they were prejudiced by any delay in learning the injury location, as is required to defeat the petition to supply that omitted information under General Municipal Law § 50-e (6). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.