61 N.Y.2d 659 (1983)
The Freedom of Information Law does not require the disclosure of the home address of a retiree of a public employees’ retirement system where a statute explicitly prohibits such disclosure, especially when the statute is made retroactive to pending cases.
Summary
The New York Veteran Police Association sought to obtain the names and addresses of all retired New York City police officers receiving pensions through a Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) request. The lower courts initially differed on whether this information should be disclosed. However, while the appeal was pending, New York amended its Public Officers Law to explicitly prevent the disclosure of retirees’ home addresses. The Court of Appeals held that the amendment applied retroactively to pending cases, thus preventing the release of the requested information and reversing the Appellate Division’s decision.
Facts
The New York Veteran Police Association, a not-for-profit organization serving retired police officers, requested the names and addresses of all New York City Police Department retirees receiving pensions.
The request was made under the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL).
Procedural History
Special Term denied the Association’s application and dismissed the petition.
The Appellate Division reversed, granting the requested relief.
While the appeal to the Court of Appeals was pending, the Public Officers Law was amended to prevent the disclosure of retirees’ home addresses.
Issue(s)
Whether the amendment to the Public Officers Law, which prohibits the disclosure of retirees’ home addresses and which became effective while the case was pending appeal, applies to the Association’s request for information.
Holding
Yes, because the amendment explicitly states that it applies to any request for information for which there had been no final determination on the effective date, including judicial review.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals focused on the explicit language of the amendment to the Public Officers Law (L 1983, ch 783), which added a new subdivision 7 to section 89. This new statute specifically stated that FOIL does not require the disclosure of the home address of a retiree of a public employees’ retirement system.
The critical factor was the amendment’s retroactive application: “Its provisions provide that it was to take effect immediately and to apply to any request for information for which there had been no final determination on the effective date, ‘including judicial review.’”
Because the case was still pending before the Court of Appeals when the amendment became effective, the court concluded that the amendment applied to the proceeding, effectively foreclosing any relief to the petitioner, the New York Veteran Police Association. The court emphasized that the legislature’s intent was clear in applying the amendment to cases still under judicial review, demonstrating a policy decision to protect the privacy of retirees’ home addresses even in ongoing legal disputes.