Source: http://docs.dos.ny.gov/coog/ftext/f17769.html
Timestamp: 2014-04-17 03:49:39
Document Index: 774849282

Matched Legal Cases: ['§87', '§87', '§87', '§87', '§87', '§87', '§87', '§89', '§84', '§89']

FOIL-AO-17769
We are in receipt of your request for an advisory opinion concerning application of the Freedom of Information Law to a request for records made to the Town of Southampton. Specifically, you requested time and attendance records and other records documenting a particular employee’s job responsibilities with the Town. The Town denied your request, citing §87(2)(e), stating that the records “are now part of an investigation” and that “disclosure would interfere with a pending investigation.” We believe the Town had no basis for denying access to the records you requested, and that they should have been made available to you. In this regard, we offer the following comments.
As you know, 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). One of the exceptions to rights of access, §87(2)(e), states that an agency may withhold records that:
iv. reveal criminal investigative techniques or procedures, except routine techniques and procedures." To characterize time and attendance records, and records documenting an employee’s activities on a particular day, as having been compiled for law enforcement purposes, even though they may be used in or pertinent to an investigation, would be inconsistent with both the language and the judicial interpretation of the Freedom of Information Law. The Court of Appeals has held on several occasions that the exceptions to rights of access appearing in §87(2) "are to be narrowly construed to provide maximum access, and the agency seeking to prevent disclosure carries the burden of demonstrating that the requested material falls squarely within a FOIL exemption be articulating a particularized and specific justification for denying access" [Capital Newspapers v. Burns, 67 NY2d 562, 566 (1986); see also, M. Farbman & Sons v. New York City Health and Hospitals Corp., 62 NY2d 75, 80 (1984); Fink v. Lefkowitz, 47 NY2d 567, 571 (1979)]. Based upon the thrust of those decisions, §87(2)(e) should be construed narrowly in order to foster access. Further, there is case law that illustrates why §87(2)(e) should be construed narrowly, and why a broad construction of that provision would give rise to an anomalous result. Specifically, in King v. Dillon (Supreme Court, Nassau County, December 19, 1984), the District Attorney was engaged in an investigation of the petitioner, who had served as a village clerk. In conjunction with the investigation, the District Attorney obtained minutes of meetings of the village board of trustees. Those minutes, which were prepared by the petitioner, were requested from the District Attorney. In granting access to the minutes, the decision indicated that "the party resisting disclosure has the burden of proof in establishing entitlement to the exemption," and the judge wrote that he:
Often records prepared in the ordinary course of business, which might already have been disclosed under the Freedom of Information Law, become relevant to or used in a law enforcement investigation or perhaps in litigation. In our view, when that occurs, the records would not be transformed into records compiled for law enforcement purposes. If they would have been available prior to their use in a law enforcement context, we believe that they would remain available, notwithstanding their use in that context for a purpose inconsistent with the reason for which they were prepared.
From our perspective, the requested records, by their nature, indicate that the exception concerning records "compiled for law enforcement purposes" is inapplicable. To contend that records which were generated for purposes wholly unrelated to any law enforcement investigation may now be withheld due to their use in an investigation would, in our opinion, be unreasonable and tend to subvert the purposes of the Freedom of Information Law. In support of this view, we again point to the decision rendered by the Court of Appeals in Capital Newspapers, supra. In its discussion of the intent of the Freedom of Information Law, the court found that the statute:
With respect to disclosure of attendance records themselves, §87(2)(b) of the Freedom of Information Law authorizes an agency to withhold records to the extent that disclosure would constitute "an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy", and the courts have provided substantial direction regarding the privacy of public employees. According to those decisions, it is clear that public employees enjoy a lesser degree of privacy than others, for it has been found in various contexts that public employees are required to be more accountable than others. With regard to records pertaining to public employees, the courts have found that, as a general rule, records that are relevant to the performance of a public employee' s official duties are available, for disclosure in such instances would result in a permissible rather than an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy [see e.g., Farrell v. Village Board of Trustees, 372 NYS 2d 905 (1975); Gannett Co. v. County of Monroe, 59 AD 2d 309 (1977), aff'd 45 NY 2d 954 (1978); Sinicropi v. County of Nassau, 76 AD 2d 838 (1980); Geneva Printing Co. and Donald C. Hadley v. Village of Lyons, Sup. Ct., Wayne Cty., March 25, 1981; Montes v. State, 406 NYS 2d 664 (Court of Claims, 1978); Steinmetz v. Board of Education, East Moriches, Sup. Ct., Suffolk Cty., NYLJ, Oct. 30, 1980); Capital Newspapers v. Burns, 67 NY 2d 562 (1986)]. Conversely, to the extent that records are irrelevant to the performance of one's official duties, it has been found that disclosure would indeed constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy [see e.g., Matter of Wool, Sup. Ct., Nassau Cty., NYLJ, Nov. 22, 1977]. One of the decisions referenced above, Capital Newspapers v. Burns, involved a request for records reflective of the days and dates of sick leave claimed by a particular municipal police officer, and in granting access, the Court of Appeals found that the public has both economic and safety reasons for knowing when public employees perform their duties and whether they carry out those duties when scheduled to do so. As such, attendance records, including those involving overtime, are in our opinion clearly available, for they are relevant to the performance of public employees' official duties. Similarly, we believe that records reflective of leave used or accrued must be disclosed, for the public has an economic interest in obtaining those records and because the records are relevant to the performance of public employees' official duties.
Based on the preceding analysis, it is clear in our view that the records at issue must be disclosed, at least in part, under the Freedom of Information Law.
Further, the Freedom of Information Law provides direction concerning the time and manner in which agencies must respond to requests. Specifically, §89(3)(a) of the Freedom of Information Law states in part that:
“Each entity subject to the provisions of this article, within five business days of the receipt of a written request for a record reasonably described, shall make such record available to the person requesting it, deny such request in writing or furnish a written acknowledgement of the receipt of such request and a statement of the approximate date, which shall be reasonable under the circumstances of the request, when such request will be granted or denied..." It is noted that new language was added to that provision in 2005 stating that:
The amendments clearly are intended to prohibit agencies from unnecessarily delaying disclosure. They are not intended to permit agencies to wait until the fifth business day following the receipt of a request and then twenty additional business days to determine rights of access, unless it is reasonable to do so based upon Athe circumstances of the request." From our perspective, every law must be implemented in a manner that gives reasonable effect to its intent, and we point out that in its statement of legislative intent, §84 of the Freedom of Information Law states that "it is incumbent upon the state and its localities to extend public accountability wherever and whenever feasible." Therefore, when records are clearly available to the public under the Freedom of Information Law, or if they are readily retrievable, there may be no basis for a delay in disclosure. As the Court of Appeals, the state's highest court, has asserted:
If neither a response to a request nor an acknowledgement of the receipt of a request is given within five business days, if an agency delays responding for an unreasonable time beyond the approximate date of less than twenty business days given in its acknowledgement, if it acknowledges that a request has been received, but has failed to grant access by the specific date given beyond twenty business days, or if the specific date given is unreasonable, a request may be considered to have been constructively denied [see '89(4)(a)]. In such a circumstance, the denial may be appealed in accordance with §89(4)(a), which states in relevant part that: "...any person denied access to a record may within thirty days appeal in writing such denial to the head, chief executive, or governing body, who shall within ten business days of the receipt of such appeal fully explain in writing to the person requesting the record the reasons for further denial, or provide access to the record sought."
cc: Hon. Sundy A. Schermeyer Richard Blowes