Court Opinion

ID: 9950815
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-14 20:10:09.998873+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:36:50.688709
License: Public Domain

Rickner PLLC v City of New York
               2024 NY Slip Op 30766(U)
                     March 11, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 153903/2022
                  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. 153903/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 63                                                                                            RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/11/2024

                                   SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
                                             NEW YORK COUNTY
            PRESENT:             HON. ARLENE P. BLUTH                                             PART                              14
                                                                                      Justice
            ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X    INDEX NO.          153903/2022
             RICKNER PLLC,
                                                                                                  MOTION DATE         03/04/2024
                                                         Petitioner,
                                                                                                  MOTION SEQ. NO.         001
                                                 -v-
             THE CITY OF NEW YORK, THE NEW YORK CITY POLICE
                                                                                                    DECISION + ORDER ON
             DEPARTMENT
                                                                                                          MOTION
                                                         Respondents.
            ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X

            The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 1- 41, 42, 43, 44, 45,
            46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61
            were read on this motion to/for                                                      ARTICLE 78 FOIL                    .

                      The petition to annul respondents’ determination regarding four separate requests under

            the Freedom of Information Law (“FOIL”) is granted as described below.

            Background

                      Petitioner brings this proceeding to challenge the denial of its FOIL requests that seek the

            full disciplinary history for 14 officers identified in four separate FOIL requests. It argues that

            respondents’ objections are improper and there should be full disclosure of these records.

            Petitioner emphasizes that in related litigation, respondents have assured a federal court that they

            are working to ensure full transparency but they are refusing to disclose the requested

            information.

                      The subject FOIL requests were sent on January 28, 2021, two were sent on February 19,

            2021 and the last was submitted on March 11, 2021. Petitioner argues that under the repeal of

            Civil Rights Law § 50-a, respondents must turn over the requested information. Petitioner also

             153903/2022 RICKNER PLLC vs. THE CITY OF NEW YORK ET AL                                                  Page 1 of 6
             Motion No. 001

                                                                           1 of 6
[* 1]
                                                                                                  INDEX NO. 153903/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 63                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/11/2024

            demands legal fees in accordance with the FOIL statutory scheme under Public Officers Law §

            89(4).

                     Respondents cross-move to dismiss on the ground that the requests are unduly

            burdensome. They observe that the FOIL requests revealed 168 disciplinary cases that could be

            responsive to petitioner’s requests and that a review of those files revealed 114 disciplinary cases

            that could be subject to disclosure (respondents contend they need not turn over files relating to

            technical infractions). Respondents observe that the “investigative worksheets” alone totaled

            10,054 pages, a figure that does not include attachments. They estimate that there would be over

            13,800 pages to review and put applicable redactions.

                     Respondents also argue that petitioner failed to exhaust its administrative remedies with

            respect to the fourth FOIL request and that it is premature to decide whether or not legal fees

            should be awarded.

                     In reply, petitioner contends that it afforded respondents additional time to comply with

            their requests and now suddenly claim that the requests are too burdensome. It alleges that in the

            more than two years since these requests were submitted, respondents have only produced 9

            pages of records even though they admit in their cross-motion that they have over 10,000 pages.

            Petitioner theorizes that now that it appears objections related to the repeal of Civil Rights Law §

            50-a are no longer viable, respondents have changed the basis of their denial in this proceeding.

            Petitioner also contends that it exhausted its administrative remedies as respondents closed their

            FOIL request; it insists that entitles it to bring the instant proceeding.

            Discussion

                     “To promote open government and public accountability, FOIL imposes a broad duty on

            government agencies to make their records available to the public. The statute is based on the

             153903/2022 RICKNER PLLC vs. THE CITY OF NEW YORK ET AL                              Page 2 of 6
             Motion No. 001

                                                            2 of 6
[* 2]
                                                                                                    INDEX NO. 153903/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 63                                                                        RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/11/2024

            policy that the public is vested with an inherent right to know and that official secrecy is

            anathematic to our form of government. Consistent with the legislative declaration in Public

            Officers Law § 84, FOIL is liberally construed and its statutory exemptions narrowly interpreted.

            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]).

                   The Court observes that petitioner met its burden to show that it exhausted its

            administrative remedies. The record is replete with respondents’ delays (e.g., NYSCEF Doc.

            Nos. 16, 23 [delaying their own response deadlines]). To be sure, petitioner’s requests seek a

            significant amount of documents. But this is not a situation in which a requestor simply files an

            Article 78 proceeding without seeking any administrative appeal whatsoever. The fact is that to

            the extent that petitioner did not obtain a final determination for every single one of its requests,

            its appeals were certainly constructively denied (see NYSCEF Doc. No. 29 [respondents’

            “closing out” of a FOIL request]).

                   Next, the Court finds that respondents’ reliance on the privacy exemption to justify denial

            of these FOIL requests is without merit. The Appellate Division, First Department has found

            that the repeal of Civil Rights Law § 50-a applies retroactively to records created prior to the

            effective date of the relevant legislation (June 12, 2020) and that these types of police

            disciplinary records must be disclosed pursuant to a FOIL request (NYP Holdings, Inc. v New

             153903/2022 RICKNER PLLC vs. THE CITY OF NEW YORK ET AL                                Page 3 of 6
             Motion No. 001

                                                           3 of 6
[* 3]
                                                                                                  INDEX NO. 153903/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 63                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/11/2024

            York City Police Dept., 220 AD3d 487, 198 NYS3d 7 [1st Dept 2023]). The privacy exemption

            is not a basis to justify production only 9 pages of documents when respondents admit it has over

            10,000 pages of responsive records (Newsday, LLC v Nassau County Police Dept., 222 AD3d

            85, 201 NYS3d 88 [2d Dept 2023] [concluding that the privacy exemption under FOIL did not

            apply to justify wholesale denial of a FOIL request for police disciplinary records]).

                      Next the Court must evaluate respondents’ burdensome argument. Respondents argue,

            essentially, that they cannot produce these records (some of which they initially said they did not

            possess) because to do so would be overly burdensome. The problem for this Court is that

            argument was not properly raised in respondents’ various denials of petitioner’s FOIL requests.

            It is axiomatic that this Court cannot consider arguments that were not part of the administrative

            record (Molloy v New York City Police Dept., 50 AD3d 98, 100, 851 NYS2d 480 [1st Dept

            2008]).

                      Respondents contend for the first time in this proceeding that they have over 10,000

            records and insist it would take many, many hours to go through these records. But nothing

            close to that argument was raised in the administrative proceedings below. Instead, respondents

            handed over a miniscule number of pages of responsive records; at no point did respondents

            provide any details on the thousands of pages they now claim are at issue.

                      Simply put, the purpose of FOIL to is to promote government transparency. It is not to

            continually delay response times, make a requestor bring an Article 78 proceeding and then, for

            the first time, contend that the request is overly burdensome. Petitioner’s requests date back to

            2021. It should not have to litigate about these requests for years only to have to deal with a

            brand-new argument raise for the first time in respondents’ cross-motion.

             153903/2022 RICKNER PLLC vs. THE CITY OF NEW YORK ET AL                                 Page 4 of 6
             Motion No. 001

                                                           4 of 6
[* 4]
                                                                                                                 INDEX NO. 153903/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 63                                                                                    RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/11/2024

                      Even if the Court could consider this belated burdensome argument, the Court finds that

            it is not a burdensome request in light of the First Department’s ruling in NYP Holdings, Inc.,

            where the Court found that records related to 144 police officers had to be disclosed (NYP

            Holdings, Inc., 220 AD3d at 489). Of course, the instant proceeding involves four FOIL requests.

            Had petitioner filed separate proceedings for each one of its FOIL requests, any burdensome

            argument would be less persuasive. Being more efficient (by bringing a single proceeding) is not

            a basis to satisfy a burdensome objection.

                      Therefore, the Court grants the petition. There is no need to permit respondents to answer

            and delay resolution of this proceeding any more (Chestnut Ridge Assoc., LLC v 30 Sephar Lane,

            Inc., 129 AD3d 885, 887 [2d Dept 2015] [observing that a Court may reach the merits of an

            Article 78 petition without permitting a respondent to answer where the parties have fully argued

            their positions in the record]).

                      Respondents must disclose the records they possess for the 114 disciplinary cases they

            identified in their cross-motion.1 This disclosure should include redactions for identifying

            information of the complainants and any witnesses mentioned in these records (see New York

            Civ. Liberties Union v New York City Dept. of Correction, 213 AD3d 530, 531, 183 NYS3d 411

            [1st Dept 2023], lv to appeal denied, 40 NY3d 909 [2024] [noting that disclosure under FOIL of

            unsubstantiated complaints should include redactions]). The Court finds that respondents should

            disclose this information on or before June 27, 2024; this should provide more than enough time

            go through these records.

            1
              Respondents argue that they need not produce records relating to disciplinary cases for technical infractions and
            petitioner did not address this issue in reply. Therefore, the Court finds that respondents need not produce the
            records relating to these cases.
                153903/2022 RICKNER PLLC vs. THE CITY OF NEW YORK ET AL                                           Page 5 of 6
                Motion No. 001

                                                                  5 of 6
[* 5]
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 153903/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 63                                                                         RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/11/2024

                    Moreover, because petitioner has substantially prevailed, it is entitled to recover

            reasonable legal fees (NYP Holdings, Inc. 220 AD3d at 489 [awarding legal fees in a FOIL

            proceeding]). Petitioner shall therefore file a motion for reasonable legal fees incurred to date on

            or before March 28, 2024; this assumes that respondents will comply timely with this order. If

            respondents fail to comply and petitioner incurs additional fees, additional legal fees may be

            awarded.

                    Accordingly, it is hereby

                    ORDERED that respondents’ cross-motion to dismiss is denied; and it is further

                    ADJUDGED that the petition is granted and respondents shall turn over the responsive

            records contained in the 114 disciplinary cases they cited in this proceeding with appropriate

            reactions to protect complainants and witnesses by June 27, 2024, and petitioner is entitled to

            costs and disbursements upon presentation of proper papers therefor; and it is further

                    ORDERED that petitioner is entitled to reasonable legal fees and that issue is severed;

            petitioner is directed to file a motion for such fees on or before March 28, 2024.

                    3/11/2024                                                           $SIG$
                      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

             153903/2022 RICKNER PLLC vs. THE CITY OF NEW YORK ET AL                               Page 6 of 6
             Motion No. 001

                                                           6 of 6
[* 6]