Court Opinion

ID: 9368052
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-02 18:06:06.19683+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:05.281707
License: Public Domain

Matter of Harris v Bronx County Dist. Attorney (2023 NY Slip Op 00487)

Matter of Harris v Bronx County Dist. Attorney

2023 NY Slip Op 00487

Decided on February 02, 2023

Appellate Division, First Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided and Entered: February 02, 2023

Before: Kapnick, J.P., Friedman, Gesmer, Moulton, Mendez, JJ. 

Index No. 260395/19 Appeal No. 17223[M-05113] Case No. 2022-00028 

[*1]In the Matter of Sheldon Harris, Petitioner-Appellant,
vBronx County District Attorney, Respondent-Respondent.

Sheldon Harris, appellant pro se.
Sylvia O. Hinds-Radix, Corporation Counsel, New York (Hannah J. Sarokin of counsel), for respondent.

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Kenneth L. Thompson, J.), entered on or about May 7, 2020, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denying the petition and amended petition brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 to challenge respondent's partial denial of petitioner's June 21, 2017 Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) request, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The court properly determined that an exception to the FOIL disclosure requirements, for an unwarranted invasion of privacy, applied to the medical records of petitioner's murder victim (see Public Officers Law § 87[2][b]; Matter of Newton v District Attorney of Bronx County, 186 AD2d 57, 57 [1st Dept 1992]). Autopsy records concerning the victim were also exempt from disclosure (see Public Officers Law § 87[2][a]; New York City Charter § 557[g]; Matter of Mitchell v Borakove, 225 AD2d 435, 435 [1st Dept 1996], app dismissed 88 NY2d 919 [1996]). Concerning respondent's denial of access to graphic photographs of the victim, pursuant to Public Officers Law § 87(2)(b), petitioner failed to articulate any public interest in disclosure of these photographs which would require the court to balance the public's interest in disclosure against the victim and her family's privacy rights (see Matter of New York Times Co. v City of N.Y. Fire Dept., 4 NY3d 477, 484-485 [2005]; Matter of Edwards v New York State Police, 44 AD3d 1216, 1216-1217 [3d Dept 2007]).
We have considered petitioner's remaining arguments, including those concerning redactions and the diligence of respondent's search for records, and find them unavailing.M-05113 — 	Matter of Harris v Bronx County District Attorney
Motion to stay the appeal, denied.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
ENTERED: February 2, 2023