Matter of Thomas v. New York City Dept. of Educ., 137 A.D.3d 698 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016). · Go Syfert
Search
Matter of Thomas v. New York City Dept. of Educ., 137 A.D.3d 698 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
2 citation events across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Matter of Correction Officers' Benevolent Assn. v. New York City Dept. of Corr. (nyappdiv, 2018-01-30)
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Correction Officers' Benevolent Assn. v. New York City Dept. of Corr.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2018 · confidence medium
Respondents met their burden of "articulating a particularized and specific justification for denying access" to the requested documents ( Matter of Data Tree, LLC v Romaine , 9 NY3d 454, 462-463 [2007] [internal quotation marks omitted]) on the grounds that they are exempt from disclosure as nonfinal intra-agency materials that "are entirely advisory in nature and rendered only to aid the actual decision-maker[s]" ( Rothenberg v City Univ. of N.Y. , 191 AD2d 195 , 196 [1st Dept 1993], lv denied 81 NY2d 710 [1993]; see Public Officers Law § 87[2][g][iii]; Matter of Thomas v New York City Dept…
In the Matter of Michael P. Thomas, Appellant,
v.
New York City Department of Education Et Al., Respondents
660 100563/14.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Mar 31, 2016.
137 A.D.3d 698
Mazzarelli, Renwick, Moskowitz, Kapnick, Kahn.
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Cynthia S. Kern, J.), entered December 9, 2014, denying the petition to direct respondents to disclose certain records pursuant to the Freedom of Information Law, and dismissing the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner seeks disclosure of materials pertaining to the investigation of his allegations that certain students improperly received mathematics credits or diplomas in violation of Department of Education (DOE) policies. As Supreme Court determined, DOE acted properly in finding that the intraagency documents at issue were exempt from disclosure pursuant to Public Officers Law § 87 (2) (g), since the documents constituted, among other things, pre-decisional materials prepared to assist DOE in making its final decision (see e.g. Matter of McAulay v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 61 AD2d 1048 [2d Dept 1978], affd 48 NY2d 659 [1979]).

Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Renwick, Moskowitz, Kapnick and Kahn, JJ.