Source: http://publicpersonnellaw.blogspot.com/2013/10/disclosure-of-public-records-pursuant.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+blogspot%2FIlee+%28New+York+Public+Personnel+Law%29
Timestamp: 2015-03-27 18:06:11
Document Index: 138864

Matched Legal Cases: ['§87', '§50', '§50', '§50', '§1127', '§33']

New York Public Personnel Law: Disclosure of public records pursuant to the Freedom of Information Law
Disclosure of public records pursuant to the Freedom of Information Law
Disclosure of public records pursuant to the Freedom of
Cook v Nassau County Police Dept., 2013 NY Slip Op 06364,
An individual submitted a Freedom of Information [FOIL]
request for certain “records” that were held in the police department’s files.
The custodian of the records declined to disclose certain documents sought by
The individual filed a petition pursuant to CPLR Article 78
seeking those records that had been withheld and Supreme Court ruled that some
of the records sought by the individual were to be disclosed and others could
be withheld by the custodian of the records.
The individual appealed that branch of his petition that
Supreme Court denied while the police department cross-appeal from so much of
the same judgment, that, in effect, granted those branches of the petition
which were to direct it to disclose certain letters, redacted email messages,
and a redacted one-page record from an internal affairs investigation. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court’s
decision, noting that “The Freedom of Information Law … was enacted "to
promote open government and public accountability" and "imposes a
broad duty on government to make its records available to the public,"
citing Gould v New York City Police Dept., 89 NY2d 267.
The court explained that FOIL provides that government
records are presumptively open for public inspection unless they fall within
one of the exceptions specified by Public Officers Law §87(2), which permits an
agency to deny access to records which "are specifically exempted from
disclosure by state or federal statute."
One such statute, said the Appellate Division, exempting
records from disclosure is Civil Rights Law §50-a(1),*
which provides, in relevant part, that "[a]ll personnel records used to
evaluate performance toward continued employment or promotion" of police
officers "shall be considered confidential and not subject to inspection
or review." However, "when access to an officer's personnel records
relevant to promotion or continued employment is sought under FOIL,
nondisclosure will be limited to the extent reasonably necessary to effectuate
the purposes of Civil Rights Law §50-a to prevent the potential use of
information in the records in litigation to degrade, embarrass, harass or
impeach the integrity of the officer." In this instance the court found that Supreme Court properly
determined, after an in camera inspection,**
that the only portion of an internal affairs investigation report which should
be disclosed pursuant to FOIL was a redacted one-page "Citizen Complaint
Summary." The Appellate Division rejected the police department’s
argument that that the redacted "Citizen Complaint Summary" also
should have been shielded from disclosure pursuant to Civil Rights Law
§50-a(1). That portion of the internal investigation report, as redacted, said
the court, does not "contain any invidious implications capable facially
of harassment or degradation of the officer in a courtroom." * Other public records, the
release of which is limited by statute, include Education Law, §1127 -
Confidentiality of records and §33.13,
Mental Hygiene Law - Clinical records; confidentiality].
** A legal proceeding is in camera when a hearing is held before the judge in his or her private
chambers or when the public is excluded from the proceeding.
http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2013/2013_06364.htm