Court Opinion

ID: 9929960
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-05 20:07:24.145577+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:01:51.411691
License: Public Domain

Roth & Roth LLP v Long Is. R.R.
               2024 NY Slip Op 30346(U)
                    January 30, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 158366/2022
                  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. 158366/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 56                                                                                           RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/30/2024

                                   SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
                                             NEW YORK COUNTY
            PRESENT:             HON. ARLENE P. BLUTH                                            PART                              14
                                                                                      Justice
            ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X   INDEX NO.          158366/2022
             ROTH & ROTH LLP,
                                                                                                 MOTION DATE         01/25/2024
                                                         Petitioner,
                                                                                                 MOTION SEQ. NO.         002
                                                 -v-
             LONG ISLAND RAILROAD, METROPOLITAN
                                                                                                   DECISION + ORDER ON
             TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
                                                                                                         MOTION
                                                         Respondents.
            ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X

            The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 002) 28, 29, 30, 31, 32,
            33, 34, 37, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55
            were read on this motion to/for                                                       RENEWAL                          .

                      Petitioner’s motion to renew is granted only as described below.

            Background

                      In this FOIL proceeding, this Court previously denied the petition on the ground that

            respondents had met their burden to show that the records sought were not reasonably described

            (NYSCEF Doc. No. 26 at 3). The Court based its decision on the affidavit of Kristin Woodhouse,

            Director of Claims and Investigations, who asserted that the forms requested by petitioner were

            kept in paper form. Petitioner had sought Accident Report Non-Employee (“ARNE”) forms that

            are used when railroad customers are injured on the Long Island Rail Road (“LIRR”) for the

            Syosset train station on Long Island.

                      Essentially, the Court found that the way Ms. Woodhouse described the record keeping

            of LIRR (all hard copy and no electronic copies) made complying with petitioner’s FOIL

            requests an impossible task as petitioner had asked for four years of records. The Court

             158366/2022 ROTH & ROTH LLP vs. LONG ISLAND RAILROAD ET AL                                              Page 1 of 9
             Motion No. 002

                                                                           1 of 9
[* 1]
                                                                                                     INDEX NO. 158366/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 56                                                                         RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/30/2024

            understood from the papers that there was no electronic database that could facilitate a FOIL

            request.

                   Petitioner now insists that this Court was misled by Ms. Woodhouse and points to the

            deposition testimony of Latchman Singh, LIRR’s Corporate Safety Department’s Director of

            Operational Safety Statistics and Reporting. It argues that Mr. Singh admits that LIRR maintains

            and stores ARNE documents in a searchable electronic format, which should compel the Court to

            grant the petition. This deposition occurred in a personal injury action filed by petitioner on

            behalf of an injured plaintiff in Nassau County. Mr. Singh testified that when the LIRR receives

            a form, it is uploaded into their system (NYSCEF Doc. No. 33 at 110).

                   Petitioner observes this deposition shows that ARNE documents are scanned and saved

            as PDFs, the accidents are indexed electronically with various codes designating the types of

            accident and that the databases can be searched electronically. Mr. Singh admitted that the

            system by which the LIRR uses various codes came into effect in 2018 (id. at 119). Petitioner

            contends that it is clear that petitioner’s specific request for searches by train station and date

            range is actually a straightforward request.

                   In opposition, respondent agrees that leave to renew should be granted and it should

            disclose responsive ARNEs to petitioner. It admits that its original determination was inaccurate,

            but claims that the appropriate remedy is to turn over the FOIL documents. Respondent insists it

            will undertake a search for all responsive documents (i.e., all ARNEs) from May 2018 onwards

            (as this is when a new computer system was implemented) and will conduct a diligent search for

            responsive records prior to May 2018 for those records that were electronically scanned or

            indexed.

             158366/2022 ROTH & ROTH LLP vs. LONG ISLAND RAILROAD ET AL                              Page 2 of 9
             Motion No. 002

                                                           2 of 9
[* 2]
                                                                                                                  INDEX NO. 158366/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 56                                                                                     RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/30/2024

                      Ms. Woodhouse includes an affidavit (NYSCEF Doc. No. 41) in this submission in

            which she explains that she retired in April 2023 and clarifies that her statements about the

            exclusive hard copy record keeping was limited to the Department of Claims, a separate entity

            from the department in which Mr. Singh works. She explains that ARNEs are initially received

            by Mr. Singh’s department before being sent to the Department of Claims. Ms. Woodhouse

            admits that she should have ensured that her assertions about the lack of an electronic index or

            database should not have been applied to the LIRR as a whole. She claims she was unaware that

            Mr. Singh’s department had a practice of scanning ARNEs or that this other department could

            run a search for ARNEs.

                      In reply1, petitioner characterizes the instant actions by respondents as frivolous and

            demands sanctions. It argues that Ms. Woodhouse submitted a false affidavit upon which this

            Court relied. It insists that it has now received 15 ARNE records but complains that there are too

            many unnecessary redactions, including the day and month from each accident report. More

            specifically, petitioner wants the names and home addresses of people who filed these ARNE

            reports because they might have information about a dangerous condition. Petitioner also wants

            legal fees, among many other demands in the instant motion.

            Discussion

                      As a preliminary matter, the Court observes that there is no dispute that it should grant

            the motion for leave to renew. Respondents admit they made a mistake and have now apparently

            turned over 15 records, although they contained various redactions which will be discussed

            1
              This reply substantially exceeds the word count limitation imposed by 22 NYCRR 202.8-b. In fact, petitioner did
            not include a certificate of conformity with the word count limits as required under the trial court rules even though
            it submitted one in connection with the moving papers (NYSCEF Doc. No. 29). Nor did petitioner properly ask or
            receive the Court’s permission to submit such a lengthy reply.
                158366/2022 ROTH & ROTH LLP vs. LONG ISLAND RAILROAD ET AL                                         Page 3 of 9
                Motion No. 002

                                                                   3 of 9
[* 3]
                                                                                                    INDEX NO. 158366/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 56                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/30/2024

            below. That addresses petitioner’s first request for relief (for the production of responsive ARNE

            records); it is now moot.

                   Petitioner’s second demand is that this Court hold an evidentiary hearing about

            respondent’s record-keeping procedures. Although petitioner repeatedly demands this relief, it

            did not cite any cases or a statutory basis upon which this Court should hold a hearing. In any

            event, this Court finds that an evidentiary hearing is not required; the Court finds that petitioner

            asked all manner of questions about respondents’ recordkeeping at Mr. Singh’s deposition.

                   And petitioner did not satisfy the standard for an evidentiary hearing. “Where an agency

            properly certifies that it does not possess a requested record, a petitioner may be entitled to a

            hearing on the issue if it can articulate a demonstrable factual basis to support the contention

            that the requested document existed and was within the agency's control” (Empire Ctr. for Pub.

            Policy v New York State Energy and Research Dev. Auth., 188 AD3d 1556, 1558, 137 NYS3d

            540 [3d Dept 2020] [internal quotations and citations omitted]). Here, respondents do not insist

            that they can’t find a requested record. Rather, they admit they made a mistake, have certain

            records and have now turned them over. Petitioner did not cite a proper basis for an evidentiary

            hearing in reply.

                   Petitioner also takes issue with the redactions respondents included in the ARNE reports

            they disclosed to petitioner. Respondents cite to Public Officers Law §§ 87(2)(b) and 89(2).

            Section 87(2)(b) permits an agency to withhold documents in situations where “if disclosed

            would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy under the provisions of

            subdivision two of section eighty-nine of this article.” Section 89(2) provides that:

                   “2. (a) The committee on public access to records may promulgate guidelines
                   regarding deletion of identifying details or withholding of records otherwise
                   available under this article to prevent unwarranted invasions of personal privacy.

             158366/2022 ROTH & ROTH LLP vs. LONG ISLAND RAILROAD ET AL                             Page 4 of 9
             Motion No. 002

                                                           4 of 9
[* 4]
                                                                                                    INDEX NO. 158366/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 56                                                                        RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/30/2024

                   In the absence of such guidelines, an agency may delete identifying details when it
                   makes records available.

                   (b) An unwarranted invasion of personal privacy includes, but shall not be limited
                   to:

                   i. disclosure of employment, medical or credit histories or personal references of
                   applicants for employment;

                   ii. disclosure of items involving the medical or personal records of a client or patient
                   in a medical facility;

                   iii. sale or release of lists of names and addresses if such lists would be used for
                   solicitation or fund-raising purposes;

                   iv. disclosure of information of a personal nature when disclosure would result in
                   economic or personal hardship to the subject party and such information is not
                   relevant to the work of the agency requesting or maintaining it;

                   v. disclosure of information of a personal nature reported in confidence to an
                   agency and not relevant to the ordinary work of such agency;

                   vi. information of a personal nature contained in a workers' compensation record,
                   except as provided by section one hundred ten-a of the workers' compensation law;

                   vii. disclosure of electronic contact information, such as an e-mail address or a
                   social network username, that has been collected from a taxpayer under section one
                   hundred four of the real property tax law; or

                   viii. disclosure of law enforcement arrest or booking photographs of an individual,
                   unless public release of such photographs will serve a specific law enforcement
                   purpose and disclosure is not precluded by any state or federal laws.”

                   The Court finds that the redactions are all permitted except for those including the date of

            the incident—that is, respondents must disclose the month, day and year of the incident for each

            of the records it produced to respondents. The date of the incident does not risk the unwarranted

            disclosure of personal information.

                   However, as petitioner makes clear, it wants to learn the identities and the nature of the

            incidents that took place at the Syosset train station so that it can explore whether or not

             158366/2022 ROTH & ROTH LLP vs. LONG ISLAND RAILROAD ET AL                             Page 5 of 9
             Motion No. 002

                                                           5 of 9
[* 5]
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 158366/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 56                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/30/2024

            respondents had prior notice of a purportedly dangerous condition related to an ongoing

            litigation pursued by petitioner on behalf of an injured plaintiff.

                   In this Court’s view, that information (which includes the names, addresses and other

            personal information of complainants) is more appropriate for the related personal injury

            litigation in which both respondents are defendants. The instant proceeding concerns a FOIL

            request—that there is a personal injury litigation on Long Island is irrelevant to this proceeding.

            “FOIL does not require that the party requesting records make any showing of need, good faith

            or legitimate purpose” (M. Farbman & Sons, Inc. v New York City Health and Hosps. Corp., 62

            NY2d 75, 80, 476 NYS2d 69 [1984]).

                   Respondents’ belated response to petitioner need not take into account why petitioner

            wants the records; it only has to assess whether or not the records fall within a statutory

            exemption such that a redaction is appropriate. “All records are presumptively available for

            public inspection and copying, unless the agency satisfies its burden of demonstrating that the

            material requested falls squarely within the ambit of one of the statutory exemptions. While

            FOIL exemptions are to be narrowly read, they must of course be given their natural and obvious

            meaning where such interpretation is consistent with the legislative intent and with the general

            purpose and manifest policy underlying FOIL” (Abdur-Rashid v New York City Police Dept., 31

            NY3d 217, 224-25, 76 NYS3d 460 [2018] [internal quotations and citation omitted]).

                   In contrast, the standard is quite different in a plenary action. In those disputes, a Court

            must employ the relevance standard in response to discovery demands. This Court, as well as

            litigants, often utilize various discovery devices (such as confidentiality orders) to ensure that

            parties get relevant evidence but also that non-parties’ personal privacy concerns are respected.

            Here, petitioner wants incident reports from non-parties that were submitted to respondents so

             158366/2022 ROTH & ROTH LLP vs. LONG ISLAND RAILROAD ET AL                             Page 6 of 9
             Motion No. 002

                                                           6 of 9
[* 6]
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 158366/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 56                                                                        RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/30/2024

            that it can potentially aid in a pending litigation. Simply because someone submits an incident

            report to respondents does not mean that record, which includes a person’s home address and

            other contact information, is now available to any member of the public.

                   The key distinction here is the difference between a FOIL request and a discovery

            demand in a plenary action. The Court makes no finding that petitioner is (or is not) entitled to

            these records as part of a personal injury action – that decision will be up to the judge in that

            case. But the motivation for the redacted portions of these records has no bearing on this Court’s

            conclusion in this proceeding, which is that it would invade these individuals’ personal privacy

            to give a FOIL requestor access to their names, home addresses and possibly medical details so

            that petitioner can pursue a litigation in which these individuals are not involved.

            Sanctions/Legal Fees

                   The Court recognizes petitioner’s dissatisfaction with respondent’s actions in this

            litigation. At best, Ms. Woodhouse’s affidavits make clear she is extraordinarily naïve. Her

            claim in her supplementary affidavit that she only meant to make assertions about the

            Department of Claims, as opposed to the agency as a whole, is too convenient. Did she not think

            to ask around about how other departments (such as Mr. Singh’s Corporate Safety Department)

            handles the storage of ARNEs and related documents?

                   It may be that Ms. Woodhouse and the attorneys for respondent were simply too “in the

            weeds” to think about the bigger picture when they submitted the original opposition papers.

            Clearly, no one thought to explore how ARNEs are stored around the entire agency and Ms.

            Woodhouse’s original affidavit gave the impression it was submitted on behalf of the LIRR as a

            whole. It was the only affidavit submitted; nothing from the Corporate Safety Department was

            included. But the Court declines to impose sanctions as respondents have readily admitted their

             158366/2022 ROTH & ROTH LLP vs. LONG ISLAND RAILROAD ET AL                             Page 7 of 9
             Motion No. 002

                                                           7 of 9
[* 7]
                                                                                                    INDEX NO. 158366/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 56                                                                         RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/30/2024

            mistake and turned over relevant records. Nothing on this record suggests that respondents

            engaged in willful misconduct; instead, this docket shows an agency that made an egregious

            mistake.

                   In any event, the fact is that petitioner is entitled to recover reasonable legal fees incurred

            in this litigation as “petitioner has substantially prevailed and respondents had no reasonable

            basis for denying access” (NYP Holdings, Inc. v New York City Police Dept., 220 AD3d 487,

            489, 198 NYS3d 7 [1st Dept 2023]).

                   Petitioner shall file a separate motion for such fees on or before February 15, 2024 as it

            did not include a request for a specific amount of fees in the instant motion.

            Summary

                   To be clear, the fact that this Court declines to hold an evidentiary hearing or to sanction

            respondents should not be taken as a signal that the Court is not disturbed by respondents’

            submissions. There is no doubt that the Court’s previous decision relied upon the affidavit of

            Ms. Woodhouse and it turns out that the scope of that affidavit was extremely limited. It did not

            properly state how records are kept across the LIRR. But mistakes happen and respondents,

            when confronted with that clear error, have now turned over the records and will now have to

            pay reasonable legal fees (assuming that petitioner makes the motion).

                   Petitioner demands sanctions as a form of punishment, but this Court finds that

            respondents’ actions, while farcical, are not frivolous. Not every mistake is grounds for

            sanctions.

                   Accordingly, it is hereby

                   ORDERED and ADJUDGED that petitioner’s motion to renew is granted and upon

            renewal, the Court grants the petition to the extent that petitioner is entitled to the 15 ARNE

             158366/2022 ROTH & ROTH LLP vs. LONG ISLAND RAILROAD ET AL                             Page 8 of 9
             Motion No. 002

                                                          8 of 9
[* 8]
                                                                                                     INDEX NO. 158366/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 56                                                                           RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/30/2024

            records without the redactions for the month, day and year (however, all other redactions may

            remain) as well as reasonable legal fees and costs and disbursements, and the petition is denied

            with respect to the remaining relief requested; and it is further

                    ORDERED that petitioner must make a separate motion for legal fees on or before

            February 15, 2024.

                    1/30/2024                                                             $SIG$
                      DATE                                                        ARLENE P. BLUTH, J.S.C.
             CHECK ONE:               X   CASE DISPOSED                    NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

                                                                                                    □
                                          GRANTED             DENIED   X   GRANTED IN PART              OTHER

             APPLICATION:                 SETTLE ORDER                     SUBMIT ORDER

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

             158366/2022 ROTH & ROTH LLP vs. LONG ISLAND RAILROAD ET AL                              Page 9 of 9
             Motion No. 002

                                                           9 of 9
[* 9]