Source: http://docs.dos.ny.gov/coog/ftext/f16613.html
Timestamp: 2014-10-25 09:27:31
Document Index: 775358891

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

FOIL-AO-16613
As you are aware, I have received your letter in which you sought an advisory opinion relating to a partial denial of a request for records directed to the New York City Industrial Development Agency (NYCIDA), a subsidiary of the New York City Economic Development Corporation. The records at issue involve the contents of a “board meeting book”, which is “roughly the size of a phone book” and is distributed to NYCIDA board members and staff at each meeting. You added that “[t]he board book contains information pertinent to the meeting and is often referred to during discussions and staff presentations at the meeting.” Although NYCIDA disclosed some elements of the board book, “[h]aving seen the size of board books at the meetings,” you wrote that “know that what was disclosed to [you] is a very small portion of the contents of a board book.” The denial of access to the remainder was based on §87(2)(g) of the Freedom of Information Law. You wrote that your “goal is to obtain a complete copy of the board book” and that “[i]f portions of the document are indeed exempt from disclosure [under] FOIL, then [you] want those portions to be redacted rather than withheld in their entirety.” You sent copies of materials made available to you, resolutions, minutes of a meeting, financial statements, and a progress report. It appears that other records contained in the board book were withheld in their entirety.
First, 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 §87(2)(a) through (j) of the Law. Second, the provision upon which the NYCIDA relied, §87(2)(g), potentially serves as a basis for denying access. However, due to its structure, it may require substantial disclosure. Specifically, §87(2)(g) authorizes an agency to withhold records that:
It cannot be overemphasized that the introductory language of §87(2) refers to the authority to withhold "records or portions thereof" that fall within the scope of the exceptions that follow. In my view, the phrase quoted in the preceding sentence evidences a recognition on the part of the Legislature that a single record or report, for example, might include portions that are available under the statute, as well as portions that might justifiably be withheld. That being so, I believe that it also imposes an obligation on an agency to review records sought, in their entirety, to determine which portions, if any, might properly be withheld or deleted prior to disclosing the remainder.
In this vein, the Court of Appeals confirmed its general view of the intent of the Freedom of Information Law in Gould v. New York City Police Department [89 NY2d 267 (1996)], stating that:
Just as significant, the Court in Gould repeatedly specified that a categorical denial of access to records is inconsistent with the requirements of the Freedom of Information Law. In that case, the Police Department contended that complaint follow up reports could be withheld in their entirety on the ground that they fall within §87(2)(g). The Court, however, wrote that: "Petitioners contend that because the complaint follow-up reports contain factual data, the exemption does not justify complete nondisclosure of the reports. We agree" (id., 276), and stated as a general principle that "blanket exemptions for particular types of documents are inimical to FOIL's policy of open government" (id., 275). The Court also offered guidance to agencies and lower courts in determining rights of access and referred to several decisions it had previously rendered, stating that:
I point out that one of the contentions offered by the agency in Gould was that certain reports could be withheld because they are not final and because they relate to matters for which no final determination had been made. The Court rejected that finding and stated that:
In sum, to the extent that the materials withheld include statistical or factual tabulations or data, as that phrase has been construed in judicial decisions, or any other information required to be disclosed pursuant to subparagraphs (ii), (iii) or (iv) of §87(2)(g), I believe that those portions must be disclosed, unless a separate basis for denial of access may appropriately be asserted. Lastly, it has been advised on many occasions that insofar as the contents of records are disclosed through discussion at a meeting open to the public, they must be made available in response to a request made under the Freedom of Information Law. In short, I believe that public discussion reflective of the contents of the records results in a waiver of the ability to deny access. I hope that I have been of assistance.
cc: Judy Fensterman
David Shelley DOS Home