Court Opinion

ID: 9965023
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-05-01 15:10:14.71292+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:25:55.064886
License: Public Domain

Reclaim the Records v City of New York
               2024 NY Slip Op 31488(U)
                     April 25, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 156960/2023
                  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. 156960/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 39                                                                                           RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/25/2024

                                   SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
                                             NEW YORK COUNTY
            PRESENT:             HON. ARLENE P. BLUTH                                            PART                              14
                                                                                      Justice
            ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X   INDEX NO.          156960/2023
             RECLAIM THE RECORDS, ALEC FERRETTI
                                                                                                 MOTION DATE         04/24/2024
                                                         Petitioners,
                                                                                                 MOTION SEQ. NO.         001
                                                 -v-
             THE CITY OF NEW YORK, OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK,                                       DECISION + ORDER ON
                                                                                                         MOTION
                                                         Respondents.
            ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X

            The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 1- 14, 15, 19, 20, 21,
            22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35
            were read on this motion to/for                                            ARTICLE 78 (BODY OR OFFICER)                .

                      The petition to compel respondents to disclose records pursuant to petitioners’ Freedom

            of Information Law (“FOIL”) request is granted in part as described below.

            Background

                      On February 17, 2023, petitioners submitted a FOIL request that sought:

                              I. All marriage records that are at least 50 years old as of the date of the
                      processing this request
                              II. All metadata for marriage records that are at least 50 years old as of the
                      date of the processing of this request
                              III. All marriage records that are less than 50 years old as of the date of the
                      processing of this request
                              IV. All metadata for marriage records that are less than 50 years old as of
                      the date of the processing of this request” (NYSCEF Doc. No. 2).

                      Respondents acknowledged the request, noted they had received it on February 28, 2023,

            and set a deadline of March 20, 2023 for respondents to issue a decision (NYSCEF Doc. No. 3).

            However, respondents did not respond by March 20, 2023 and so petitioners filed an internal

            appeal on April 5, 2023. That prompted respondents to issue a determination on April 7, 2023 in

             156960/2023 RECLAIM THE RECORDS ET AL vs. THE CITY OF NEW YORK ET AL                                    Page 1 of 6
             Motion No. 001

                                                                           1 of 6
[* 1]
                                                                                                  INDEX NO. 156960/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 39                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/25/2024

            which they granted access to twelve fields of data from 2018 to the present (NYSCEF Doc. No.

            6). Examples of these data fields include the bride and groom’s first and last name, the borough

            of the marriage license and well as the date of the marriage ceremony. However, respondents

            denied “access to the rest of the requested data pursuant to (i) Public Officers Law § 87(2)(a)

            together with Domestic Relations Law § 19 and (ii) Public Officers Law § 87(2)(b)” (id.).

                   Petitioners then appealed this determination and respondents affirmed their initial

            determination. Respondents noted that the fields of data for which they had denied the FOIL

            request included previous marriages, current place of residence, place of birth, parents’ names

            and birthplaces and the spouses’ forms of identification (NYSCEF Doc. No. 8). Respondents

            added that “There is a substantial personal interest in the confidentiality of the Denied Data and

            very little public interest in its disclosure. The information to which access was denied could, if

            disclosed, easily be used, alone or in combination with other information, to perpetrate identity

            theft. Consequently, the balancing test mandated by FOIL in determining whether to withhold

            information under the privacy exemption mandates denial of access in this case. In addition,

            section 19 of the Domestic Relations Law clearly states that the information to which access was

            denied is disclosable only whenever the same may be necessary or required for judicial or other

            proper purposes, none of which have been articulated by Reclaim the Records” (id.).

                   Petitioners argue that respondents did not provide a particularized or specific justification

            for denying access to the records sought in the FOIL request and that respondent should be

            required to turn over the requested information.

                   In opposition, respondents point out that petitioners sought all marriage records and

            related metadata from the last 100 years. They emphasize that the disclosure of these records

            would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy that could expose countless individuals to

             156960/2023 RECLAIM THE RECORDS ET AL vs. THE CITY OF NEW YORK ET AL                  Page 2 of 6
             Motion No. 001

                                                          2 of 6
[* 2]
                                                                                                                 INDEX NO. 156960/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 39                                                                                    RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/25/2024

            identity theft. Respondents point to a decision in the Appellate Division, Third Department that

            they claim stands for the proposition that personal privacy interests outweigh any reason to

            disclose this information.

                      In reply,1 petitioners complain that respondents limited the database of information from

            2018 through 2023 and that there was no explanation for why records older than 50 years were

            not disclosed. They point out that the City Clerk’s own website acknowledges the public

            availability of these records.

            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

            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]).

            1
              Curiously, petitioners reply memo includes a certification of compliance with the word count limits that indicates
            the reply was 4,658 words (NYSCEF Doc. No. 36 at 15). But the limit for a reply is 4,200 words. Despite
            petitioners’ violation of this rule, the Court will consider the reply submission.
                156960/2023 RECLAIM THE RECORDS ET AL vs. THE CITY OF NEW YORK ET AL                             Page 3 of 6
                Motion No. 001

                                                                  3 of 6
[* 3]
                                                                                                     INDEX NO. 156960/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 39                                                                         RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/25/2024

                   As a preliminary matter, the Court observes that respondents’ FOIL determination was

            not responsive to petitioners’ FOIL request. Specifically, respondents bizarrely limited the time

            period of the request to 2018 through the present without any explanation. The initial FOIL

            request’s first two categories included “All marriage records that are at least 50 years old as of

            the date of the processing this request” and “All metadata for marriage records that are at least 50

            years old as of the date of the processing of this request.” As petitioners point out, the applicable

            rule in the Administrative Code provides that “no information shall be released from a record of

            marriage unless the record has been on file for at least 50 years and the parties to the marriage

            are known to the applicants to be deceased” (10 NYCRR 35.5[c][4]).

                   And petitioners aptly cited to the City Clerk’s website, which states that “A Marriage

            Record older than 50 years from today's date is considered a historic record and is available to

            the general public.” The fact is that respondents did not cite any reason for why it ignored the

            first two categories of petitioners’’ FOIL request and why they sua sponte limited the time

            period of the request to 2018 through the present. Therefore, respondents must provide access to

            the requested information for these first two categories. The Court observes that respondents

            appear to raise a “burdensome” argument in their opposition papers. But this was not raised in

            their denials at the agency level and so they cannot raise it here for the first time.

                   However, the Court affirms, in part, respondents’ partial denial with respect to the

            remaining categories of requested information. This included requests for “All marriage records

            that are less than 50 years old as of the date of the processing of this request” and “All metadata

            for marriage records that are less than 50 years old as of the date of the processing of this

            request” (NYSCEF Doc. No. 2). This Court must follow the Appellate Division, Third

            Department’s decision in Hepps v New York State Dept. of Health (183 AD3d 283, 122 NYS3d

             156960/2023 RECLAIM THE RECORDS ET AL vs. THE CITY OF NEW YORK ET AL                    Page 4 of 6
             Motion No. 001

                                                           4 of 6
[* 4]
                                                                                                      INDEX NO. 156960/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 39                                                                          RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/25/2024

            446 [3d Dept 2020]), which found that marriage records less than 50 years old were not subject

            to disclosure under FOIL as disclosure would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal

            privacy. The Third Department noted that “We are persuaded that marrying parties—private

            persons—had every expectation that their personal information, although required to obtain a

            license to marry, would not be provided to third parties” (id. at 291).

                      Here, respondents rationally noted that there is a real threat of identify theft if they turned

            over the data fields not made available to petitioners. As the Third Department observed, “In

            short, in this Internet age, the potential for harm to thousands of private citizens from the

            disclosure of the personal information at issue far outweighs the presumed benefit to a few

            genealogical enthusiasts” (id. at 293). Accordingly, this Court affirms respondents’ decision not

            to disclose certain data fields (i.e., the data fields defined as the “Denied Data” in NYSCEF Doc.

            No. 8).

                      However, the Court observes that respondents made twelve data fields available to

            petitioners (id.). The Court grants the petition to the extent that petitioners must be granted

            access to such data fields for the last 50 years as respondents were not entitled (as discussed

            above) to sua sponte limit the time period of petitioners’ FOIL requests.

                      The Court also awards legal fees in light of the fact that petitioners have clearly

            substantially prevailed and respondents did not cite a reasonable basis for the vast majority of

            their denial (see NYP Holdings, Inc. v New York City Police Dept., 220 AD3d 487, 489, 198

            NYS3d 7 [1st Dept 2023]). Petitioners are directed to file a motion for reasonable legal fees on

            or before May 16, 2024.

             156960/2023 RECLAIM THE RECORDS ET AL vs. THE CITY OF NEW YORK ET AL                      Page 5 of 6
             Motion No. 001

                                                             5 of 6
[* 5]
                                                                                                     INDEX NO. 156960/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 39                                                                           RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/25/2024

            Summary

                    The Court observes that petitioners must be provided access to the marriage database for

            all data fields for marriage records older than 50 years and access to the 12 data fields for

            marriage records that are less than 50 years old.

                    Accordingly, it is hereby

                    ADJUDGED that the petition is granted in part as described above and petitioners are

            also entitled to recover costs and disbursements upon presentation of a proper papers to the

            County Clerk.

                    4/25/2024                                                             $SIG$
                      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

             156960/2023 RECLAIM THE RECORDS ET AL vs. THE CITY OF NEW YORK ET AL                    Page 6 of 6
             Motion No. 001

                                                           6 of 6
[* 6]