Center for Appellate Litig. v New York County Dist.

Attorney's Off.

2024 NY Slip Op 31910(U)

June 3, 2024

Supreme Court, New York County

Docket Number: Index No. 451799/2023

Judge: Arlene P. Bluth

Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip

Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York

State and local government sources, including the New

York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service.

This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official

publication.
451799/2023 CENTER FOR APPELLATE LITIGATION ET AL vs. NEW YORK COUNTY DISTRICT 

ATTORNEY'S OFFICE

Motion No. 001

Page 1 of 6

The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 1- 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 

18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 33, 34, 35

were read on this motion to/for ARTICLE 78 FOIL .

The petition to compel disclosure of records pursuant to the Freedom of Information Law 

(“FOIL”) is denied. 

Background

Petitioners seek materials related to a 2013 prosecution that resulted in a murder 

conviction of non-party Travis Woods following three hung juries. They complain that 

respondent denied access to all of the materials in the file, including witness statements, police 

reports and photographs. Petitioners insist that respondent’s cited statutory exemptions under 

FOIL do not apply. They also question respondent’s argument that it need not produce records 

that were previously provided to the criminal defendant’s attorney (the criminal defendant is not 

a party to this case). 

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

NEW YORK COUNTY

PRESENT: HON. ARLENE P. BLUTH PART 14

Justice 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X INDEX NO. 451799/2023

 MOTION DATE 05/28/2024

 MOTION SEQ. NO. 001

DECISION + ORDER ON 

MOTION

CENTER FOR APPELLATE LITIGATION, MATTHEW 

BOVA

 Petitioners, 

- v -

NEW YORK COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE,

 Respondent. 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/03/2024 02:31 PM INDEX NO. 451799/2023

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 36 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/03/2024

1 of 6 [* 1]
451799/2023 CENTER FOR APPELLATE LITIGATION ET AL vs. NEW YORK COUNTY DISTRICT 

ATTORNEY'S OFFICE

Motion No. 001

Page 2 of 6

After petitioners submitted their FOIL request in August 2022, respondent issued an 

initial determination in which it noted that the criminal defendant’s case was still pending 

(NYSCEF Doc. No. 5). It also insisted that certain requests were protected as attorney work 

product (such as the communications of its attorneys) and that the statements of witnesses were 

protected by the public safety exemption. Respondent maintained that disclosing statements 

would also constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy of these witnesses and 

potentially endanger them. It added that “This exemption is especially applicable in a case like 

this, where defendant, as part of a narcotics crew, shot and killed a person who interfered with 

narcotics trafficking” (id. at 3). After appeal, respondent adhered to its initial determination and 

cited these same exemptions (NYSCEF Doc. No. 7). 

Respondent observes that in the instant petition, petitioners only focus on a subset of 

respondent’s asserted exemptions from disclosure. It observes that petitioners did not contest 

exemptions for records protected under attorney work-product, that “rap-sheet” records of 

witnesses are exempt from disclosure and that respondent does not possess communications from 

the parole board. Respondents insist that petitioner’s appeal was still pending and so disclosure 

of records would interfere with that proceeding, particularly items such as prosecutor’s notes.

In reply, petitioners contend that the Appellate Division, First Department denied Mr. 

Woods’ appeal and that he has subsequently filed an application for leave to appeal to the Court 

of Appeals. They insist that the fact that the appeal was pending when the FOIL request was 

initially made is not a sufficient argument either. Petitioners claim that respondent must identify 

which documents it believes are subject to this exemption. 

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/03/2024 02:31 PM INDEX NO. 451799/2023

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 36 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/03/2024

2 of 6 [* 2]
451799/2023 CENTER FOR APPELLATE LITIGATION ET AL vs. NEW YORK COUNTY DISTRICT 

ATTORNEY'S OFFICE

Motion No. 001

Page 3 of 6

Petitioners also observe that because of the age of this criminal case (Mr. Woods was 

convicted in 2013), not all records were disclosed to his attorneys as the criminal discovery laws 

were different. They also question respondent’s assertion that there is a public safety or privacy 

reason to exempt certain documents from disclosure. Petitioners contend that respondent has not 

established why such exemption applies as the allegations are almost two decades old. They 

observe that the Constitution requires that exculpatory evidence be turn over and so any 

exculpatory evidence included in these documents must be turned over. 

Discussion

“To promote open government and public accountability, FOIL imposes a broad duty on 

government agencies to make their records available to the public. The statute is based on the 

policy that the public is vested with an inherent right to know and that official secrecy is 

anathematic to our form of government. Consistent with the legislative declaration in Public 

Officers Law § 84, FOIL is liberally construed and its statutory exemptions narrowly interpreted. 

All records are presumptively available for public inspection and copying, unless the agency 

satisfies its burden of demonstrating that the material requested falls squarely within the ambit of 

one of the statutory exemptions. While FOIL exemptions are to be narrowly read, they must of 

course be given their natural and obvious meaning where such interpretation is consistent with 

the legislative intent and with the general purpose and manifest policy underlying FOIL” (AbdurRashid v New York City Police Dept., 31 NY3d 217, 224-25, 76 NYS3d 460 [2018] [internal 

quotations and citation omitted]).

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/03/2024 02:31 PM INDEX NO. 451799/2023

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 36 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/03/2024

3 of 6 [* 3]
451799/2023 CENTER FOR APPELLATE LITIGATION ET AL vs. NEW YORK COUNTY DISTRICT 

ATTORNEY'S OFFICE

Motion No. 001

Page 4 of 6

The Court denies the petition for many reasons. As an initial matter, this Court denies the 

petition on the ground that the criminal defendant’s appeal is not exhausted. He is currently 

seeking leave to appeal the First Department’s decision to the Court of Appeals. There are 

numerous cases that have held that “disclosure of any other trial evidence that would constitute a 

‘record’ would interfere with respondent's handling of the appeal of the criminal conviction” 

(Sideri v Off. of Dist. Atty., New York County, 243 AD2d 423, 423 [1st Dept 1997] lv. denied 91 

N.Y.2d 808, 669 N.Y.S.2d 261, 692 N.E.2d 130 [1998]); see also Moreno v New York County 

Dist. Attorney's Off., 38 AD3d 358, 358, 832 NYS2d 183 [1st Dept 2007]). 

Petitioner correctly notes that under Lesher v Hynes (19 NY3d 57, 945 NYS2d 214 

[2012]), the agency must still meet its burden to articulate a basis for this exemption (the 

interference with enforcement proceedings). Respondent has done that here by noting that there 

is a pending appeal and that the requested records, such as witness statements, are directly at 

issue in that appeal. In this Court’s view, Lesher does not stand for the proposition that 

respondent must explain how every single document applies to this exemption. As the Court of 

Appeals stated in Lesher, “The agency must identify the generic kinds of documents for which 

the exemption is claimed, and the generic risks posed by disclosure of these categories of 

documents” (id.). Respondent met its burden here. 

Next, as respondent argues, petitioners (as Mr. Woods’ new appellate counsel) cannot 

seek records that were already provided to the criminal defendant’s attorney in his criminal trial 

“absent a showing that such documents are no longer available” (Franklin v Keller, 254 AD2d 

83, 254 AD2d 83 [1st Dept 1998] [denying a FOIL request for witness statements where 

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/03/2024 02:31 PM INDEX NO. 451799/2023

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 36 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/03/2024

4 of 6 [* 4]
451799/2023 CENTER FOR APPELLATE LITIGATION ET AL vs. NEW YORK COUNTY DISTRICT 

ATTORNEY'S OFFICE

Motion No. 001

Page 5 of 6

petitioner failed to show that he no longer had materials previously provided to his attorney]). 

The fact is that the vast majority of these documents were presumably provided to the criminal 

defendant at his trial. And petitioners, his new attorneys for the appeal, did not adequately 

explain why they did not (or cannot) obtain the records from the criminal defendant’s prior 

counsel. 

Moreover, the Court also finds that respondent’s other claimed exemptions also compel 

the Court to deny the petition. These involve requested records related to witness statements and 

the Court agrees that the public-safety exemption under Public Officers Law § 87(2)(f) and the 

unwarranted invasion of personal privacy under Public Officers Law § 87(2)(f) both apply. 

While petitioners warn against blanket exemptions in murder cases (a well taken position), the 

fact is that according to respondent, the criminal defendant “was the enforcer for a drug crew 

running out of the King Towers housing project. He was initially convicted in 2008 for narcotics 

related counts in connection with a 2006 homicide. After two subsequent hung juries on the 

homicide and gun possession counts, defendant was convicted of those counts in the fourth trial 

in 2013 and sentenced to twenty-five years to life” (NYSCEF Doc. No. 7, n 4). In other words, 

Mr. Woods was initially convicted on serious drug charges and then eventually convicted for 

murder. That suggests that these exemptions apply here. 

As the First Department had held “account must be taken of the chilling effect the release 

of such personal information to the general public would have on future witnesses to intentional 

murder from cooperating with the police, for fear that once they provide their contact 

information, the general public would have easy and permanent access to their whereabouts as 

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/03/2024 02:31 PM INDEX NO. 451799/2023

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 36 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/03/2024

5 of 6 [* 5]
451799/2023 CENTER FOR APPELLATE LITIGATION ET AL vs. NEW YORK COUNTY DISTRICT 

ATTORNEY'S OFFICE

Motion No. 001

Page 6 of 6

well as the information they provided during the investigation. We have held such redactions to 

be proper” (Exoneration Initiative v New York City Police Dept., 114 AD3d 436, 439, 980 

NYS2d 73 [1st Dept 2014]). This Court finds that public safety and the unwarranted invasion of 

personal privacy therefore compel the conclusion that disclosure is not warranted. 

Accordingly, it is hereby

ADJUDGED that the petition is denied and this proceeding is dismissed without costs or 

disbursements. 

6/3/2024 $SIG$

DATE ARLENE P. BLUTH, J.S.C.

CHECK ONE: X CASE DISPOSED NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

GRANTED X DENIED GRANTED IN PART OTHER

APPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER

CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT REFERENCE

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/03/2024 02:31 PM INDEX NO. 451799/2023

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 36 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/03/2024

6 of 6

(k 

□ 

□ 

[* 6]