Court Opinion

ID: 9950813
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-14 20:10:07.328624+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:36:50.133727
License: Public Domain

Whitfield v MTA Foil Team & Legal Dept.
               2024 NY Slip Op 30768(U)
                     March 11, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 154850/2023
                  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. 154850/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 54                                                                                            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.          154850/2023
             JOHN WHITFIELD,
                                                                                                  MOTION DATE             N/A
                                                         Petitioner,
                                                                                                  MOTION SEQ. NO.         001
                                                 -v-
             MTA FOIL TEAM AND LEGAL DEPARTMENT,                                                     DECISION + ORDER ON
                                                                                                           MOTION
            Respondent.
            ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X

            The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 1- 23, 25, 30, 31, 32,
            33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53
            were read on this motion to/for                                                      ARTICLE 78 - FOIL                  .

                      Respondent’s cross-motion to dismiss is granted.

            Background

                      This Freedom of Information Law (“FOIL”) proceeding concerns three different FOIL

            requests filed by petitioner. He filed two on March 21, 2023 and another on April 20, 2023. In

            them, he requested inter alia “all disciplinary proceedings filed against me” and “all records

            regarding an incident I was disciplined for.” Petitioner claims he waited a month and then

            appealed the constructive denial of only the first request (he claims he did not appeal the second

            request “ to see if MTA would detect that both requests were from the same requester”).

                      Petitioner then filed another FOIL request on the same day, April 20, 2023. Petitioner

            attaches a letter from respondent in which he noted that petitioner’s constructive denial appeal is

            moot. He insists that there was no actual FOIL response to his appeal and that respondent never

            actually responded to any of his three FOIL appeals.

             154850/2023 WHITFIELD, JOHN vs. MTA FOIL TEAM AND LEGAL DEPARTMENT                                       Page 1 of 5
             Motion No. 001

                                                                           1 of 5
[* 1]
                                                                                                  INDEX NO. 154850/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 54                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/11/2024

                   Respondent cross-moves to dismiss. It observes that it responded to the first FOIL request

            on April 27, 2023 and that petitioner was told that because he was requesting employment,

            personnel and disciplinary records, he had to send “an original, notarized authorization” along

            with his request (NYSCEF Doc. No. 34 at 2). Respondent observes that petitioner also sought

            documents called G2s, which are statements from MTA employees and that petitioner could seek

            these records from his location supervisor. It argues that G2s are not stored in a universal

            database because they have varying purposes from discipline to risk management assessments.

                   With respect to the second request, respondent submitted a response in which it argues

            that this request, which dealt with manufacturer’s records relating to electro-pneumatic brakes,

            was not reasonably described (NYSCEF Doc. No. 35). Respondent noted that it is a party to

            thousands of contracts and that petitioner’s request for records did not identify specific agency

            staff or specific external parties where respondent should look for records (id.). Respondent

            contends that petitioner did not administratively appeal this decision.

                   Respondent observes that the third FOIL request was submitted via mail and that it was

            inadvertently marked as a duplicate and closed. It observes that petitioner never filed an appeal

            for this third FOIL request. It also observes that it has since turned over documents with respect

            to petitioner’s first FOIL request.

                   Petitioner opposes the cross-motion and “cross-moves with respect to the cross-motion”

            in support of his claim for sanctions. He described communications with respondent’s attorney

            and claims that respondent has refused to turn over documents it admits it possesses. Petitioner

            details certain work events relating to a respirator and how this violated OSHA rules.

                   He insists that this Court has jurisdiction over his second and third requests despite the

            fact that he never filed an administrative appeal for either one. Petitioner contends that an

             154850/2023 WHITFIELD, JOHN vs. MTA FOIL TEAM AND LEGAL DEPARTMENT                   Page 2 of 5
             Motion No. 001

                                                          2 of 5
[* 2]
                                                                                                                    INDEX NO. 154850/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 54                                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/11/2024

            appeal was futile. Petitioner argues that respondent’s conduct was frivolous and that he is

            entitled to recover sanctions as well as legal fees in this proceeding. He insists that respondent

            “attempted to maliciously injure me” in retaliation for bringing this proceeding.

                      In reply, respondent maintains that this Court should not consider petitioner’s arguments

            about relief unrelated to this proceeding. It denies that there is some sort of conspiracy to harass

            petitioner. Respondent emphasizes that petitioner never administratively appealed the second and

            third FOIL requests and that it has now supplied petitioner with responsive records with respect

            to the first FOIL request.

                      Respondent stresses that it has 70,000 MTA employees and that G2s (the forms petitioner

            requests) are created daily for many, many purposes. It insists that these documents, which are

            created by MTA employees, are not saved or labeled for easy identification.

                      Petitioner offers a reply1 in which he claims that respondent has not presented any

            evidence that he would have prevailed had he actually filed an administrative appeal of his

            second and third FOIL requests.

            Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies

                      The Court denies the petition to the extent petitioner seeks relief under his second and

            third FOIL requests. Petitioner admits that he never sought administrative appeals for either of

            these FOIL requests. That compels the Court to deny these branches of the petition as he did not

            exhaust his administrative remedies (Jamison v Tesler, 300 AD2d 194, 194 [1st Dept 2002]).

            This is not a situation in which petitioner submitted an appeal and contends he waited a

            reasonable amount of time before bringing the instant proceeding.

            1
              Although this response is technically an impermissible sur-reply, the Court will consider it as petitioner is self-
            represented.
                154850/2023 WHITFIELD, JOHN vs. MTA FOIL TEAM AND LEGAL DEPARTMENT                                   Page 3 of 5
                Motion No. 001

                                                                    3 of 5
[* 3]
                                                                                                  INDEX NO. 154850/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 54                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/11/2024

                   Rather, he explicitly admits that he never filed an appeal for either one. Therefore, the

            Court cannot reach the question whether or not there was a constructive denial of his FOIL

            requests such that an appeal would be futile. Put another way, petitioner’s insistence that an

            appeal would have been futile is mere speculation given the failure to appeal. In fact, the Court

            observes that petitioner alleged in the verified petition that he chose not to appeal the second

            FOIL request as part of “a test” he sought to give respondent (NYSCEF Doc. No. 1, ¶ 14). That

            admission negates any claim of futility with respect to a possible administrative appeal.

            First Request

                   The Court denies this branch of the petition that seeks disclosure of records under the

            first FOIL request as moot as respondent insists it has turned over the responsive records (over

            900 pages).

                   The Court finds that respondent met its burden with respect to the demands for the G2s.

            Respondent rationally observed that these are documents generated by MTA employees for

            various reasons and are not therefore readily sortable. Petitioner correctly observes that

            respondent should probably look into organizing these documents in a way that they can be

            retrieved in connection with FOIL proceedings or ordinary plenary actions. But FOIL only

            requires agencies to turn over documents; it does not require them to change their storage

            guidelines. Nor does it require respondent to create records. The papers submitted on this

            proceeding show that respondent turned over responsive documents within its possession and

            met its burden in response to a FOIL request.

                   And respondent is correct to point out that petitioner’s complaints about the MTA’s

            actions against him are irrelevant. This is not a plenary action in which petitioner has alleged

            affirmative causes of action against respondent and where the rules of discovery apply. That

             154850/2023 WHITFIELD, JOHN vs. MTA FOIL TEAM AND LEGAL DEPARTMENT                   Page 4 of 5
             Motion No. 001

                                                          4 of 5
[* 4]
                                                                                                       INDEX NO. 154850/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 54                                                                             RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/11/2024

            petitioner believes there is a conspiracy against him is not an issue in this proceeding; this is a

            proceeding about FOIL requests.

                    The Court declines to award any legal fees or sanctions. Although respondent did not turn

            over records until after this proceeding was commenced, the timeline does not show that

            respondent unreasonably denied access “for more than a year” (NYP Holdings, Inc. v New York

            City Police Dept., 220 AD3d 487, 489 [1st Dept 2023]). Here, respondent issued its

            determination on April 27, 2023 in which it noted, in part, that petitioner had to get a notarized

            authorization for some of the records. Petitioner then brought this proceeding less than a month

            later. This is not a situation where petitioner refused to turn over documents for years (see id.).

                    There is also no basis for sanctions. Instead, the record shows that respondent and its

            attorney attempted to work with petitioner to disclose responsive records given the breadth of

            petitioner’s requests.

                    Accordingly, it is hereby

                    ORDERED the respondent’s cross-motion to dismiss is granted; and it is further

                    ADJUDGED that the petition is denied and this proceeding is dismissed without costs or

            disbursements upon presentation of proper papers therefor.

                    3/11/2024                                                            $SIG$
                      DATE                                                       ARLENE P. BLUTH, J.S.C.
             CHECK ONE:               X   CASE DISPOSED                  NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

                                                                                                     □
                                          GRANTED             DENIED     GRANTED IN PART              X     OTHER

             APPLICATION:                 SETTLE ORDER                   SUBMIT ORDER

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

             154850/2023 WHITFIELD, JOHN vs. MTA FOIL TEAM AND LEGAL DEPARTMENT                           Page 5 of 5
             Motion No. 001

                                                            5 of 5
[* 5]