Source: https://docs.dos.ny.gov/coog/ftext/f9157.htm
Timestamp: 2017-10-23 17:22:51
Document Index: 380860778

Matched Legal Cases: ['§89', '§95', '§95', '§92', '§87', '§87']

86-A-8151
Dear Mr. Tinsley:
I have received your letter of November 24. Notwithstanding your view of my response to you of November 20, I believe that it was as complete as it could have been based on the information that you provided.
Having reviewed your latest correspondence, it is emphasized that the Committee on Open Government is authorized to provide advice concerning the Freedom of Information and Personal Privacy Protection Laws. The Committee does not maintain control of an agency's records and it is not empowered to enforce those statutes or compel an agency to grant or deny access to records. Nevertheless, in an effort to offer guidance, I offer the following comments.
First, the Freedom of Information pertains to existing records. Section 89(3) of that statute provides in part that an agency need not create or prepare a record that it does not maintain. Further, agencies are not in most instances required to keep records permanently. Records may be discarded or destroyed in accordance with schedules indicating the length time that they must be kept.
When an agency indicates that it does not maintain or cannot locate a record, an applicant for the record may seek a certification to that effect. Section 89(3) of the Freedom of Information Law provides in part that, in such a situation, on request, an agency "shall certify that it does not have possession of such record or that such record cannot be found after diligent search." If you consider it worthwhile to do so, you could seek such a certification.
Second, you wrote that you were informed that the information sought was "not specific." In this regard, §89(3) of the Freedom of Information Law states in part that an applicant must "reasonably describe" the records sought. In considering that standard, the State's highest court has found that requested records need not be "specifically designated", that to meet the standard, the terms of a request must be adequate to enable the agency to locate the records, and that an agency must "establish that 'the descriptions were insufficient for purposes of locating and identifying the documents sought'...before denying a FOIL request for reasons of overbreadth" [Konigsberg v. Coughlin, 68 NY 2d 245, 249 (1986)].
"respondents have failed to supply any proof whatsoever as to the nature - or even the existence - of their indexing system: whether the Department's files were indexed in a manner that would enable the identification and location of documents in their possession (cf. National Cable Tel. Assn. v Federal Communications Commn., 479 F2d 183, 192 [Bazelon, J.] [plausible claim of nonidentifiability under Federal Freedom of Information Act, 5 USC section 552 (a) (3), may be presented where agency's indexing system was such that 'the requested documents could not be identified by retracing a path already trodden. It would have required a wholly new enterprise, potentially requiring a search of every file in the possession of the agency']" (id. at 250).
In my view, whether a request reasonably describes the records sought, as suggested by the Court of Appeals, may be dependent upon the terms of a request, as well as the nature of an agency's filing or record-keeping systems. In Konigsberg, it appears that the agency was able to locate the records on the basis of an inmate's name and identification number. In this instance, I am unaware of the means by which the Department maintains the records in which you are interested. If it maintains all of the records sought in a file or group of files that are retrievable on the basis of the terms of your request, I believe that you would have met the requirement that the records be reasonably described. On the other hand, however, it is possible that the Department maintains records falling within the scope of your request in a number of locations or units and by means of different filing systems within those units. If that is so, your request, or perhaps portions of it, might not have reasonably described the records.
Third, you referred to the "privacy act." As suggested earlier, that statute in New York is known as the Personal Privacy Protection Law. In my view, that statute would not apply in the context of your request. Although §95(1) of the Personal Privacy Protection Law generally grants rights of access to records to a person to whom the records pertain, §95(7) provides that rights of access "shall not apply to public safety agency records". The phrase "public safety agency record" is defined by §92(8) to mean:
"a record of the commission of corrections, the temporary state commission of investigation, the department of correctional services, the division for youth, the division of probation or the division of state police or of any agency of component thereof whose primary function is the enforcement of civil or criminal statutes if such record pertains to investigation, law enforcement, confinement of persons in correctional facilities or supervision of persons pursuant to criminal conviction or court order, and any records maintained by the division of criminal justice services pursuant to sections eight hundred thirty-seven, eight hundred thirty seven-a, eight hundred thirty-seven-c, eight hundred thirty-eight, eight hundred thirty-nine, eight hundred forty-five, and eight hundred forty-five-a of the executive law."
Therefore, while the Personal Privacy Protection Law applies to records maintained by state agencies, rights of access conferred by that law do not include records of agencies or units within agencies whose primary functions involve investigation, law enforcement or the confinement or persons in correctional facilities.
The Freedom of Information Law, however, is applicable to all agency records. In brief, that statute 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 (i) of the Law. Since I am unaware of the contents of the records in which you are interested, or the effects of their disclosure, I cannot offer specific guidance. Nevertheless, the following paragraphs will review the provisions that may be significant in determining rights of access to the records in question.
Of potential significance is §87(2)(b) of the Freedom of Information Law, which permits an agency to withhold records or portions thereof when disclosure would constitute "an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy". That provision might be applicable relative to the deletion of identifying details in a variety of situations, i.e., where a record identifies a confidential source or a witness, for example.
iii. final agency policy or determinations; or iv. external audits, including but not limited to audits performed by the comptroller and the federal government... "
It is noted that the language quoted above contains what in effect is a double negative. While inter-agency or intra-agency materials may be withheld, portions of such materials consisting of statistical or factual information, instructions to staff that affect the public, final agency policy or determinations or external audits must be made available, unless a different ground for denial applies. Concurrently, those portions of inter-agency or intra-agency materials that are reflective of opinion, advice, recommendation and the like could in my view be withheld.
I point out that a decision rendered in 1989 might have dealt with records similar to some of those in which you are interested. In that case, it was stated that: