Source: http://docs.dos.ny.gov/coog/ftext/2013/18442.html
Timestamp: 2014-03-08 18:00:18
Document Index: 566572539

Matched Legal Cases: ['§66', '§87', '§66', '§89', '§ 87', '§66', '§66']

FOIL 18442
This is written in response to your correspondence dated November 15, 2010, addressed to Mr. Keith Herbert at Newsday. While it is not typical that we respond to an agency’s response to an appeal made pursuant to the Freedom of Information Law, we believe that it is appropriate to do so in this instance.
As you noted, except in unusual circumstances, accident reports prepared by police agencies are available under both the Freedom of Information Law and §66-a of the Public Officers Law. Section 66-a states that:
The Freedom of Information Law is consistent with the language quoted above, for while accident reports are generally available, §87(2)(e)(i) of the Freedom of Information Law states in relevant part that records compiled for law enforcement purposes may be withheld to the extent that disclosure would "interfere with law enforcement investigations or judicial proceedings."
While we concur reliance on the determination in Scott, Sardano & Pomeranz v. Records Access Officer [65 NY 2d 294, 491 NYS 2d 289 (1985)] is appropriate, we believe that the ruling in actuality requires disclosure of the motor vehicle accident reports in their entirety.
In Scott, Sardano, supra, the Court of Appeals held that a right of access to accident reports "is not contingent upon the showing of some cognizable interest other than that inhering in being a member of the public" [Scott, Sardano & Pomeranz v. Records Access Officer, 65 NY 2d 294, 491 NYS 2d 289, 291 (1985)]. Accordingly, denial of access to such records in reliance on the language that disclosure should only be available to those persons “having an interest therein” is misplaced. Clearly, a newspaper journalist represents the interests of the public.
Further, as a general matter, the Freedom of Information Law is based upon a presumption of access. Stated differently, all records of an agency are available, except to the extent that records or portions thereof fall within one or more grounds for denial appearing in section 87(2)(a) through (k) of the Law. Accordingly, it is our opinion that both the Freedom of Information Law and §66-a would apply to require production of the report you requested in its entirety.
The court’s analysis of the matter in Scott, Sardano, is relevant here again, because it states that an agency may withhold names and addresses of individuals from accident reports when they are sought for commercial or fund-raising purposes, based on the exception set forth in §89(2)(b), which permits an agency to withhold information which if released would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. Because the reports at issue in Scott, Sardano were requested by a law firm seeking to contact accident victims and to solicit their business, the court directed the City to delete names and addresses of the victims before making the reports available (see §§ 87[2][b] and 89[2][b]).
Based on the narrowness of the ruling in Scott, Sardano, it is our opinion that the Court did not give permission to an agency to redact anything from accident reports other than names and addresses when they are to be used for commercial or fund-raising purposes.
As we understand §66-a, there is nothing in that statute that would authorize an agency, such as the County, to withhold information from motor vehicle accident reports except as described above. In addition to the broad definition of the term “record” appearing in the Freedom of Information Law, we point out that it has been held that even photographs made during the course of an investigation of an accident and other records comprising a police department’s investigation of an accident are part of the accident report and are, therefore, available under §66-a of the Public Officers Law [see Fox v. New York, 28 AD 2d (1967); Romanchuk v. County of Westchester, 42 AD 2d 783, aff’d 34 NY 2d 906 (1973)].
In sum, it is our view, based on the language of the law and its judicial construction, that the accident reports should have been made available in full.
cc: Keith Herbert, Newsday