foil violation in New York

2025This Court recognized in <i>New York Times</i> that immediate survivors of the deceased may have an interest in keeping private certain information about their loved ones, especially information of a deeply [*7]personal nature ( 4 NY3d at 484-485 ).

2020In our view, those facts demonstrate that the portion of the prior appeal relating to petitioners' FOIL claim stemmed from "the very kinds of unreasonable delays and denials of access which the counsel fee provision seeks to deter," and Supreme Court accordingly abused its discretion in declining to include the counsel fees and costs connected thereto in its award ( Matter of Legal Aid Socy. v New York State Dept. of Corr. & Community Supervision , 105 AD3d 1120 , 1122 [2013] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]). [FN1] Finally, although we agree with Supreme Court that the attorne

2020In our view, those facts demonstrate that the portion of the prior appeal relating to petitioners' FOIL claim stemmed from "the very kinds of unreasonable delays and denials of access which the counsel fee provision seeks to deter," and Supreme Court accordingly abused its discretion in declining to include the counsel fees and costs connected thereto in its award ( Matter of Legal Aid Socy. v New York State Dept. of Corr. & Community Supervision , 105 AD3d 1120 , 1122 [2013] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]). [FN1] Finally, although we agree with Supreme Court that the attorne

2016Agency, 592 F3d 60, 68 [2d Cir 2009], cert denied 562 US 828 [2010] [interpreting the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (internal quotation marks omitted)]).

2016Agency, 592 F3d 60, 68 [2d Cir 2009], cert denied 562 US 828 [2010] [interpreting the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (internal quotation marks omitted)]).

2016To hold otherwise would allow agencies to frustrate the purpose of FOIL by discarding records when they receive FOIL requests. “ ‘On a motion to dismiss a pleading pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) and 7804 (f), all of the allegations in the pleading are deemed true and afforded the benefit of every favorable inference’ ” (Matter of Schlemme v Planning Bd. of City of Poughkeepsie, 118 AD3d 893 , 895 [2014], quoting Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Mastromarino, 98 AD3d 662, 662-663 [2012]).

2010Indeed, the due process protections embodied in the EDPL do not even allow for discovery. [11] Rather, in enacting the EDPL, the Legislature clearly evinced an intent for expeditious review of agency determinations, not a trial-like hearing process, by placing, for example, original jurisdiction of these proceedings in the Appellate Division and setting a short statute of limitations ( see Matter of Jackson, 67 NY2d at 424 ). [12] To establish that a FOIL violation rose to the level of a due process violation, petitioners "must show that the withholding of the [documents] . . . caused [them] p

2010Indeed, the due process protections embodied in the EDPL do not even allow for discovery. [11] Rather, in enacting the EDPL, the Legislature clearly evinced an intent for expeditious review of agency determinations, not a trial-like hearing process, by placing, for example, original jurisdiction of these proceedings in the Appellate Division and setting a short statute of limitations ( see Matter of Jackson, 67 NY2d at 424 ). [12] To establish that a FOIL violation rose to the level of a due process violation, petitioners "must show that the withholding of the [documents] . . . caused [them] p

2007(See Matter of McGriff v Bratton, 293 AD2d 401 [1st Dept 2002]; see also Matter of Michalak v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Pomfret, 286 AD2d 906 [4th Dept 2001]; see also Matter of Nelson v Coughlin, 188 AD2d 1071 [4th Dept 1992].) With respect to the alleged violation of the Open Meetings Law, the law is clear that “[e]very meeting of a public body shall be open to the general public, except that an executive session of such body may be called and business transacted thereat in accordance with [section 105]” of the Public Officers Law.

2003As the United States Supreme Court has held in John Doe Agency v John Doe Corp. ( 493 US 146, 153 [1989]) in interpreting the same words in the law enforcement provision of the Federal Freedom of Information Act, after which the FOIL clause was patterned (Matter of Fink v Lefkowitz, 47 NY2d 567 , 572 n [1979]; Matter of Legal Aid Socy. v New York City Police Dept., 274 AD2d 207 , 214 n 4 [1st Dept 2000]), “compiled” means the time when the reply to a FOIL request has to be performed, not when the documents are originally collected and assembled by the government agency.

2003As the United States Supreme Court has held in John Doe Agency v John Doe Corp. ( 493 US 146, 153 [1989]) in interpreting the same words in the law enforcement provision of the Federal Freedom of Information Act, after which the FOIL clause was patterned (Matter of Fink v Lefkowitz, 47 NY2d 567 , 572 n [1979]; Matter of Legal Aid Socy. v New York City Police Dept., 274 AD2d 207 , 214 n 4 [1st Dept 2000]), “compiled” means the time when the reply to a FOIL request has to be performed, not when the documents are originally collected and assembled by the government agency.

2000In Matter of Newsday v Sise ( 71 NY2d 146 , cert denied 486 US 1056 ), the Court of Appeals expressly rejected the argument that a FOIL exception applies only to the actual paper record of a juror questionnaire, holding that the FOIL exception applies to information extracted from paper records and stored in a different format.

2000In Matter of Newsday v Sise ( 71 NY2d 146 , cert denied 486 US 1056 ), the Court of Appeals expressly rejected the argument that a FOIL exception applies only to the actual paper record of a juror questionnaire, holding that the FOIL exception applies to information extracted from paper records and stored in a different format.

2000In Matter of Newsday v Sise ( 71 NY2d 146 , cert denied 486 US 1056 ), the Court of Appeals expressly rejected the argument that a FOIL exception applies only to the actual paper record of a juror questionnaire, holding that the FOIL exception applies to information extracted from paper records and stored in a different format.

2000In Matter of Newsday v Sise ( 71 NY2d 146 , cert denied 486 US 1056 ), the Court of Appeals expressly rejected the argument that a FOIL exception applies only to the actual paper record of a juror questionnaire, holding that the FOIL exception applies to information extracted from paper records and stored in a different format.

1993Moreover, as we held in Matter of Westchester Rock-land Newspapers v Kimball ( 50 NY2d 575, 581 ), FOIL’S scope should not be restricted to "the purpose for which a document was produced or the function to which it relates” (see also, *699 Matter of Capital Newspapers v Whalen, 69 NY2d 246, 253 , supra).

1993Moreover, as we held in Matter of Westchester Rock-land Newspapers v Kimball ( 50 NY2d 575, 581 ), FOIL’S scope should not be restricted to "the purpose for which a document was produced or the function to which it relates” (see also, *699 Matter of Capital Newspapers v Whalen, 69 NY2d 246, 253 , supra).

1993We do hold that for the purposes of petitioner’s FOIL inquiry, this public College constitutes an "agency.” Nothing in the statute or legislative history requires a contrary holding, and the statutory language should be interpreted consistent with "its natural and most obvious” meaning (see, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 1, Statutes § 94; Price v Price, 69 NY2d 8, 15-17 ).

1993We do hold that for the purposes of petitioner’s FOIL inquiry, this public College constitutes an "agency.” Nothing in the statute or legislative history requires a contrary holding, and the statutory language should be interpreted consistent with "its natural and most obvious” meaning (see, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 1, Statutes § 94; Price v Price, 69 NY2d 8, 15-17 ).

1993Moreover, as we held in Matter of Westchester Rock-land Newspapers v Kimball ( 50 NY2d 575, 581 ), FOIL’S scope should not be restricted to "the purpose for which a document was produced or the function to which it relates” (see also, *699 Matter of Capital Newspapers v Whalen, 69 NY2d 246, 253 , supra).

1993Moreover, as we held in Matter of Westchester Rock-land Newspapers v Kimball ( 50 NY2d 575, 581 ), FOIL’S scope should not be restricted to "the purpose for which a document was produced or the function to which it relates” (see also, *699 Matter of Capital Newspapers v Whalen, 69 NY2d 246, 253 , supra).