Court Opinion

ID: 9952467
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-19 20:09:11.900265+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:39:40.271489
License: Public Domain

Gonen v New York City Police Depart.
               2024 NY Slip Op 30835(U)
                     March 14, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 159794/2023
                  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. 159794/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 40                                                                                            RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/14/2024

                                   SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
                                             NEW YORK COUNTY
            PRESENT:             HON. ARLENE P. BLUTH                                             PART                              14
                                                                                      Justice
            ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X    INDEX NO.          159794/2023
             YOAV GONEN, THE CITY REPORT, INC.
                                                                                                  MOTION DATE
                                                         Petitioners,
                                                                                                  MOTION SEQ. NO.         001
                                                 -v-
             NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT,                                                       DECISION + ORDER ON
                                                                                                          MOTION
                                                         Respondent.
            ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X

            The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 1- 9, 12, 13, 14, 15,
            16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 30, 31, 32, 34- 39
            were read on this motion to/for                                                      ARTICLE 78- FOIL                   .

                      The petition to annul a decision concerning FOIL is decided as described below.

            Background

                      This special proceeding concerns a FOIL request for a specific Internal Affairs Bureau

            (“IAB”) file (NYSCEF Doc. No. 2). Petitioners observe that this IAB file relates to an incident

            involving a retired police officer. They contend that this retired officer brandished a weapon at

            three boys and, after he was subsequently arrested, a police chief voided that arrest. Petitioners

            allege that IAB found that no misconduct was committed by this police chief but the Civilian

            Complaint Review Board (“CCRB”) conducted its own investigation and recommended that the

            police chief get docked up to 10 vacation days. Petitioners insist that the then-police

            commissioner upheld this penalty and the police chief is currently challenging this determination

            in an administrative trial.

             159794/2023 GONEN, YOAV ET AL vs. NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT                                        Page 1 of 5
             Motion No. 001

                                                                           1 of 5
[* 1]
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 159794/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 40                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/14/2024

                     Petitioners observe that in 2023, the Brooklyn District Attorney’s Office released

            numerous videos about the arrest of the former officer and the voiding of the arrest a few hours

            later.

                     In a decision dated January 31, 2024, this Court denied respondent’s cross-motion to

            dismiss this proceeding and directed respondent to answer (NYSCEF Doc. No. 32). The Court

            noted that “Respondent’s cited justifications for not turning over the records in question do not

            compel the Court to dismiss the proceeding at this stage. Its citation to a criminal procedure law

            provision about sealing arrest records was not accompanied by any case law that shows it applies

            to IAB files. And the issue of personal privacy is easily addressed with redactions” (id. at 5-6).

                     Respondent then answered and also disclosed a copy of the IAB investigation file to

            petitioners (it included a four-page report with two attachments, an audio recording and a 911

            report). It argues that the proceeding is now moot. It observes that it included redactions to “the

            names, addresses, dates of birth, tax identification number, and phone numbers of the sealed

            arrestee and witnesses.”

                     In reply, petitioners argue that the disclosure of this record does not moot the proceeding

            because respondent has zeroed in on a specific case number and is seeking to avoid the

            disclosure of other investigative records. They argue that the request, when taken in context and

            under the circumstances, requires the disclosure of the entire investigative file. Petitioners blame

            respondent for not helping them request the records and that it would be futile to make

            petitioners file another FOIL request. They contend that respondent has improperly assumed that

            the request only pertains to a single IAB case number.

             159794/2023 GONEN, YOAV ET AL vs. NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT                     Page 2 of 5
             Motion No. 001

                                                           2 of 5
[* 2]
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 159794/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 40                                                                         RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/14/2024

            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]).

                   The Court denies the petition. It is moot now that respondent has turned over the

            requested IAB file. The FOIL request at issue stated that “Under the provisions of the New York

            Freedom of Information Law, Article 6 of the Public Officers Law, I am requesting a copy of the

            investigative file for IAB case 2021-26524” (NYSCEF Doc. No. 15). And respondent asserts it

            has now turned over this record. That satisfied respondent’s obligation under FOIL (Rattley v

            New York City Police Dept., 96 NY2d 873, NYS2d 768 [2001] [noting that an agency satisfies

            its obligation by certifying that it has disclosed all responsive documents]).

                   Petitioners’ argument that it was not really asking for a specific IAB case file is belied by

            the FOIL request itself which mentions a specific IAB case number. Any reasonable

            interpretation of the FOIL request yields the conclusion that respondent has turned over all

             159794/2023 GONEN, YOAV ET AL vs. NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT                     Page 3 of 5
             Motion No. 001

                                                          3 of 5
[* 3]
                                                                                                    INDEX NO. 159794/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 40                                                                        RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/14/2024

            responsive records. Petitioners’ attempt to assert that the context means that respondent should

            have disclosed more records is without merit. Petitioners do not take issue with the redactions;

            instead, they claim they are entitled to more records that are, essentially, closely related to the

            specific record they requested.

                   Of course, respondent was obligated to respond only to the specific FOIL request at

            issue; to claim that respondent was required to speculate as to what other records petitioners

            might be interested in receiving exceeds respondent’s obligations under FOIL. A FOIL

            proceeding is not a plenary action where parties can make broad discovery demands; rather, it is

            a special proceeding commenced to evaluate the specific request at hand. Petitioner has received

            what it requested.

                   Petitioners’ alternative argument, that it would be futile to make them file another FOIL

            request, is also wholly without merit. Petitioners cannot insist that they need not follow the

            FOIL process because they speculate that respondent will not turn over records in response to

            those future requests. Simply because petitioners have prevailed here does not mean it is a free-

            for-all. Petitioner sought a specific file and received it. The requested documents have been

            provided.

                   However, the Court finds that because petitioners have substantially prevailed, they are

            entitled to recover reasonable legal fees (NYP Holdings, Inc. 220 AD3d at 489 [awarding legal

            fees in a FOIL proceeding]). The fact is that this request was filed in 2022; that respondent has

            only just now turned over these records after petitioners filed the instant proceeding is not a basis

            to deny this relief. People who request documents pursuant to FOIL should not have to

            commence a court case to get a response. Petitioners shall therefore file a motion for reasonable

            legal fees on or before March 26, 2024.

             159794/2023 GONEN, YOAV ET AL vs. NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT                      Page 4 of 5
             Motion No. 001

                                                           4 of 5
[* 4]
                                                                                                       INDEX NO. 159794/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 40                                                                             RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/14/2024

                    Accordingly, it is hereby

                    ADJUDGED that the petition is denied as moot only with respect to the FOIL request

            and the issue of reasonable legal fees is severed; and it is further

                    ORDERED that petitioners shall make a separate motion for such fees on or before

            March 26, 2024.

                    3/14/2024                                                              $SIG$
                      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

             159794/2023 GONEN, YOAV ET AL vs. NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT                            Page 5 of 5
             Motion No. 001

                                                            5 of 5
[* 5]