New York Civil Service Attorney Law Blog : New York Civil Service Lawyer & Attorney : Kevin P. Sheerin : Article 78 : Serving New York City, Long Island, Manhattan, Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens, Staten Island

Matter of McCrory v Village of Scarsdale

Petitioner brought about this Article 78 appeal to review an order granting a motion by the Village of Scarsdale to dismiss her petition as time-barred. Petitioner sought to compel the Village to disclose certain records pursuant to the Freedom of Information Law. The Court felt that the original judgment was proper due to the proceeding not being commenced until five months after the Village informed petitioner that it would not disclose the records. The statute of limitations was four-months and therefore the appeal was not timely.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court affirmed the order and judgment and dismissed the petition.

Read more about this Article 78 appeal.

To read about more Article 78 cases go to http://www.sheerinlaw.com/?id=78.

For other interesting information in the personal injury file go to www.negligenceatty.com.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Matter of Dennis Timmons v Michael C. Green, Monroe County District Attorney

Petitioner commenced this Article 78 proceeding to compel respondent to provide documents sought pursuant to the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL). Respondent then made a motion to dismiss the petition which the Supreme Court denied. Respondent argued that petitioner incorrectly sent his FOIL requests to the Monroe County District Attorney’s Office. Even though the official FOIL representative for Monroe County may be the Department of Communications, the DA’s office is still an agency that is subject to FOIL and therefore has the burden of responding to FOIL requests. The Court also rejected respondent’s argument that the petitioner failed to exhaust all administrative remedies and that the proceeding is untimely. Petitioner did, in fact, commence the proceeding within four months of the denied FOIL requests. However, the Court agreed with respondent’s contention that the court erred in granting the petition without first allowing respondent the opportunity to serve and file an answer.

Accordingly, the Court modified the judgment vacating those parts granting the petition and granted responded 20 days to serve and file an answer.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

A public records expert, hired by the owner of Saratoga Springs’ largest home, filed a lawsuit against the city for not providing him with requested records concerning the mansion’s assessment. The mansion owner’s lawyer, Mark Glaser, requested information about the assessment of the home, filing a Freedom of Information Law request to find out how much the city spent to assess the property. While the city provided access to some records, they were not complete and did not answer Glaser’s question. The city’s attorney feels that the Article 78 appeal is being filed in order to “harass the accounts office”.

Read article here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Matter of Sunter v. David

This Article 78 appeal was commenced by an incarcerated petitioner, Male Sunter, to challenge the decisions of the New York City Police Department (NYPD) and the New York County District Attorney’s Office (DA) denying his request for Freedom of Information (FOIL) documents.

Petitioner requested 88 documents from the DA’s office. The DA denied his request asserting that these documents were exempt from disclosure due to possible judicial interference and the DA’s inability to locate said documents. Petitioner then brought about an Article 78 appeal to obtain the FOIL documents. The Court finds this appeal must be denied as untimely because it was not filed within the 30 day time limit.

Petitioner also requested 68 items from the NYPD. The NYPD provided petitioner with some of the documents requested but denied others as exempt. Petitioner then appealed this determination. NYPD moved to dismiss the petition, claiming that the documents were exempt due to possible interference with petitioner’s pending appeal. The Court denied NYPD’s motion to dismiss on this ground. The NYPD also argued that the proceeding was barred by the statute of limitations but the Court ruled that the proceeding was timely filed within four months from the date petitioner received the determination.

Accordingly, the Court denied the petition as to respondent District Attorney and denied the cross-motion by NYPD and directed NYPD to serve petitioner a Verified Answer.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link