Court Opinion

ID: 9942013
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-20 14:07:33.289903+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:47:35.604714
License: Public Domain

New York Civ. Liberties Union v New York City
                      Police Dept.
               2024 NY Slip Op 30469(U)
                    February 13, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 160620/2023
                  Judge: Arlene P. Bluth
Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip
 Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York
 State and local government sources, including the New
  York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service.
 This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official
                       publication.
                                                                                                                     INDEX NO. 160620/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 28                                                                                           RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/13/2024

                                   SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
                                             NEW YORK COUNTY
            PRESENT:             HON. ARLENE P. BLUTH                                            PART                              14
                                                                                      Justice
            ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X   INDEX NO.          160620/2023
             NEW YORK CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
                                                                                                 MOTION DATE             N/A
                                                         Petitioner,
                                                                                                 MOTION SEQ. NO.         001
                                                 -v-
             NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT,                                                      DECISION + ORDER ON
                                                                                                         MOTION
                                                         Respondent.
            ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X

            The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001)1- 13, 14, 18, 19, 20,
            21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27
            were read on this motion to/for                                                      LEGAL FEES                        .

                      The instant application for legal fees is granted as described below.

            Background

                      This Freedom of Information Law (“FOIL”) petition was partially resolved by the parties

            (NYSCEF Doc. No. 17). That settlement noted that petitioner sought “records relating to

            Petitioner's FOIL request (FOIL-2023-056-24405), for the disaggregated, incident- level data

            used to produce the NYPD vehicle encounter reports for the Third Quarter of 2023” (id.).

            Respondent agreed inter alia to “disclose the disaggregated data for the Third Quarter vehicle

            encounter reports of 2023” (id.).

                      The Court observes that the parties’ stipulation provided that respondent would file a

            cross-motion to dismiss by January 17, 2024. However, respondent ignored this court-ordered

            stipulation and, instead, petitioner filed a memorandum of law on January 31, 2024 in support of

            its claim for legal fees (although petitioner did not request a specific dollar amount).

             160620/2023 NEW YORK CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION vs. NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT                          Page 1 of 5
             Motion No. 001

                                                                           1 of 5
[* 1]
                                                                                                     INDEX NO. 160620/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 28                                                                         RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/13/2024

                   Petitioner contends that it is entitled to legal fees because it prevailed in this litigation as

            respondent has agreed to produce (and respondent did, in fact, produce) records in response to

            this litigation. It argues that it filed a FOIL request on October 13, 2023 and respondent gave

            itself an unreasonable March 2024 production date. Petitioner observes that this delayed

            timeline prompted petitioner to bring the instant proceeding and then, only after it filed this

            petition, respondent quickly agreed to turn over the documents.

                   In opposition, respondent insists that it timely responded to the FOIL request and that its

            March 2024 deadline was within the statutorily prescribed time. It observes that it acknowledged

            the October 13, 2023 request on October 19, 2023. Respondent contends that it acted reasonably

            and that petitioner was not constructively denied access. It emphasizes that it eventually turned

            over the records on December 22, 2023 in accordance with the parties’ stipulation.

            Discussion

                   The instant procedural posture is confounding to the Court. Although petitioner filed a

            petition, respondent ignored the parties’ own stipulation and never filed a cross-motion to

            dismiss in accordance with that stipulation. Nor did it file an answer in which it could raise

            objections. Instead, respondent waited for petitioner to file a supplementary memorandum of

            law in support of fees before its own filing a memorandum of law in opposition that includes

            substantive arguments about the merits of the petition.

                   As a procedural matter, the Court finds that petitioner is entitled to fees because

            respondent never filed a cross-motion to dismiss or an answer and therefore did not properly

            respond to the petition.

                   On the merits, the Court finds that petitioner is also entitled to fees on the ground that it

            substantially prevailed. Petitioner filed a FOIL request on October 13, 2023 for a limited data

             160620/2023 NEW YORK CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION vs. NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT           Page 2 of 5
             Motion No. 001

                                                           2 of 5
[* 2]
                                                                                                  INDEX NO. 160620/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 28                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/13/2024

            set- spreadsheets for a limited time period (Quarter 3 of 2023); petitioner, apparently believing

            that the request was straightforward, insisted that the records be turned over in five business days

            (NYSCEF Doc. No. 4).

                   Respondent then offered a barebones acknowledgment in which it set a targeted response

            date of March 4, 2024. Petitioner appealed that response date and noted that its request “is

            sufficiently narrowed to a single electronic dataset that the NYPD maintains—a dataset the

            NYPD has already compiled and produced for separate time periods in response to two previous

            FOIL requests and litigation required to obtain completion of those requests” (NYSCEF Doc.

            No. 6 at 1). Petitioner emphasized that “the NYPD proposes a nearly five-month timeline to

            produce one quarter of data, yet the Department recently completed production of the NYCLU's

            request for a year's worth of data in under three months” (id.). Respondent then rejected

            petitioner’s arguments by insisting that 90 business days (or March 5, 2024) was a reasonable

            amount of time (NYSCEF Doc. No. 7).

                   Public Officers Law § 89(4)(c) provides that

                   “The court in such a proceeding: (i) may assess, against such agency involved,
                   reasonable attorney's fees and other litigation costs reasonably incurred by such
                   person in any case under the provisions of this section in which such person has
                   substantially prevailed, and when the agency failed to respond to a request or appeal
                   within the statutory time; and (ii) shall assess, against such agency involved,
                   reasonable attorney's fees and other litigation costs reasonably incurred by such
                   person in any case under the provisions of this section in which such person has
                   substantially prevailed and the court finds that the agency had no reasonable basis
                   for denying access.”

                   In these motion papers, respondent simply did not adequately explain its reasonable basis

            for its elongated timeline. Petitioner noted that the records it sought were already compiled by

            respondent and that respondent had issued an entire year’s worth of records (not just a single

            quarter) in three months. And, most convincingly, petitioner observed that after it brought the

             160620/2023 NEW YORK CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION vs. NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT       Page 3 of 5
             Motion No. 001

                                                          3 of 5
[* 3]
                                                                                                  INDEX NO. 160620/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 28                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/13/2024

            instant petition, respondent was suddenly able to produce these records in December 2023, more

            than two months ahead of its initial schedule.

                   Respondent offered nothing in its memo of law to justify why it picked a deadline of

            March 5, 2024 or how it was able to get the documents ready by December 22, 2023. Without a

            reasonable justification, the Court is left with the impression that respondent was fully capable of

            producing these records well before its arbitrary March 2024 deadline and just gave petitioner

            the “run around.”

                   The purpose of FOIL is to encourage full disclosure of governmental records, subject to

            various exceptions. Although agencies have some latitude in their time to respond (see Public

            Officers Law § 89[3][a]), that discretion is not intended to force parties to have to bring an

            Article 78 proceeding to get an agency to pay attention to a FOIL request (see Matter of

            Madeiros v New York State Educ. Dept., 30 NY3d 67, 79, 64 NYS3d 635 [2017] [awarding legal

            fees, in part, on the ground that the respondent did not make any disclosures prior to petitioner’s

            commencement of an Article 78 proceeding]).

                   Here, petitioner asked for records that it believed should not take respondent very long to

            produce. In fact, these were records that respondent had already produced for other time periods.

            When respondent proposed a ridiculous time period, petitioner reiterated, with specifics, why it

            thought the March deadline was too long. Instead of offering an adequate reason for why it

            would take so long or simply giving over the documents, respondent insisted it needed nearly

            five months to produce a few pages.

                   Even in this proceeding, no sufficient justification is given for why the March 2024 date

            was given. There is no indication this request was overly complicated or that some other factor

            necessitated the long wait time. “Since petitioner has substantially prevailed and respondents

             160620/2023 NEW YORK CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION vs. NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT        Page 4 of 5
             Motion No. 001

                                                          4 of 5
[* 4]
                                                                                                    INDEX NO. 160620/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 28                                                                          RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/13/2024

            had no reasonable basis for denying access,” petitioner is entitled to reasonable legal fees (NYP

            Holdings, Inc. v New York City Police Dept., 220 AD3d 487, 489, 198 NYS3d 7 [1st Dept

            2023]).

                      However, the Court is unable to grant a specific amount of legal fees because, for some

            reason, petitioner did not ask for a specific amount nor did it include any invoices. Even more

            bizarrely, petitioner did not request a hearing to determine reasonable legal fees. Of course, that

            raises the question: how is this Court supposed to determine the amount to award petitioner?

                      Therefore, petitioner is directed to make a separate motion for legal fees on or before

            February 21, 2024. Petitioner may not request the amounts incurred in drafting this forthcoming

            motion because it should have included it in the memorandum of law requesting legal fees.

                      Accordingly, it is hereby

                      ORDERED that petitioner’s request for reasonable legal fees, the only remaining issue in

            this proceeding, is granted and petitioner shall file a separate motion for such fees on or before

            February 21, 2024.

                      2/13/2024                                                          $SIG$
                        DATE                                                     ARLENE P. BLUTH, J.S.C.
             CHECK ONE:                 X   CASE DISPOSED                 NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

                                                                                                   □
                                        X   GRANTED             DENIED    GRANTED IN PART              OTHER

             APPLICATION:                   SETTLE ORDER                  SUBMIT ORDER

                                                                                                   □
             CHECK IF APPROPRIATE:          INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN    FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT        REFERENCE

             160620/2023 NEW YORK CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION vs. NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT         Page 5 of 5
             Motion No. 001

                                                             5 of 5
[* 5]