Capital Newspapers Division of the Hearst Corp. v. Burns, 67 N.Y.2d 562 (1986)
Under New York’s Freedom of Information Law (FOIL), personal or unofficial documents intermingled with official government files and held by a governmental entity are considered “records” of an “agency” and are subject to disclosure unless a specific statutory exemption applies.
Summary
This case clarifies the scope of New York’s Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) regarding access to documents held by government agencies. The Court of Appeals held that personal or unofficial documents intermingled with official government files and held by a governmental entity are considered “records” of an “agency” under FOIL and are subject to disclosure unless a specific statutory exemption applies. The decision emphasizes the broad definition of “record” and “agency” under FOIL, rejecting a narrow interpretation that would limit disclosure only to documents directly related to governmental decision-making. This ruling prevents agencies from unilaterally prescreening documents and potentially thwarting legitimate FOIL requests.
Facts
Following the death of Albany Mayor Erastus Corning, II, his extensive collection of documents (the Corning papers) was stored at City Hall. These papers included personal correspondence and documents related to his activities as Albany County Democratic Committee Chairman. A reporter from The Knickerbocker News initially gained access to the papers but was later denied further access while the city reviewed and removed documents it deemed personal and not subject to FOIL. The city argued that the personal letters and Democratic Committee correspondence were not covered by FOIL because Corning did not create them in his capacity as mayor.
Procedural History
The newspaper appealed the denial of access to the city’s FOIL Appeals Officer, then sought an advisory opinion from the State Committee on Open Government, which supported disclosure. The newspaper then commenced a proceeding to obtain court-ordered access. Special Term granted the request, allowing the city to claim exemptions for specific documents. The Appellate Division modified, excluding papers of a personal nature and those related to the Albany County Democratic Committee. The Court of Appeals then reviewed the Appellate Division’s decision based on a certified question.
Issue(s)
Whether the Appellate Division erred in modifying Special Term’s judgment by reversing so much thereof as required disclosure of the papers of the late Erastus Corning, II, for the years 1980-1983 relating solely to his personal activities and those made or received in his capacity as Chairman of the Albany County Democratic Committee.
Holding
Yes, because the documents fall within the broad definition of “record” under FOIL as information “kept, held, filed, produced or reproduced by, with or for an agency” (Public Officers Law § 86 [4]), and the City of Albany is an “agency” as a “governmental entity” (Public Officers Law § 86 [3]).
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals emphasized that statutory language should be given its natural and obvious meaning. The Corning papers fit the definition of “record” under FOIL. The court rejected the argument that only records dealing with governmental decision-making should be subject to disclosure. The court stated that FOIL is based on the principle that “the public is vested with an inherent right to know and that official secrecy is anathematic to our form of government” (Matter of Fink v Lefkowitz, 47 NY2d 567, 571). The Court held that FOIL is to be liberally construed and its exemptions narrowly interpreted. Allowing agencies to unilaterally prescreen documents would be inconsistent with the detailed system FOIL establishes for determining exemptions. The Court reasoned that if agencies could simply remove documents they deemed outside the scope of FOIL, they could bypass the statutory process of articulating a specific exemption and avoid judicial review. This could allow an agency to block a legitimate FOIL request by simply labeling a public record “purely private”, thus thwarting the objective of FOIL.