62 N.Y.2d 75 (1984)
The Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) provides a right of access to government records that is separate and distinct from discovery rights in litigation, and a party’s status as a litigant does not automatically preclude them from utilizing FOIL to obtain agency records.
Summary
M. Farbman & Sons, Inc. sought access to records from the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation (HHC) under FOIL, related to a construction project that was also the subject of a breach of contract lawsuit between Farbman and HHC. HHC denied the FOIL request, arguing that Farbman was using it to circumvent discovery rules. The Court of Appeals held that FOIL rights are not extinguished by pending or potential litigation, and CPLR Article 31 (governing discovery) is not a blanket exemption from FOIL. The court emphasized the broad public right of access under FOIL and the narrow interpretation of its exemptions. The case was remanded for an in camera inspection to determine if any specific exemptions applied.
Facts
M. Farbman & Sons, Inc. contracted with HHC to perform plumbing work at Harlem Hospital, with completion delayed and cost overruns incurred.
On April 13, 1981, Farbman made a FOIL request for 14 categories of records related to the construction project.
HHC denied the request, deeming it overly broad.
Farbman appealed, and the denial was affirmed.
Farbman then commenced an Article 78 proceeding to compel production of the records.
Subsequently, Farbman filed a notice of claim and commenced a breach of contract action against HHC.
Procedural History
Farbman initiated an Article 78 proceeding to compel HHC to produce the requested documents.
Special Term initially ordered an in camera inspection of the documents.
After Farbman filed a breach of contract action, HHC moved to reargue, but Special Term adhered to its original determination.
The Appellate Division reversed, dismissing the petition, holding that FOIL could not be used to further in-progress litigation.</n
Issue(s)
1. Whether a party involved in litigation with a government agency forfeits their rights under the Freedom of Information Law to access agency records related to the litigation.
2. Whether CPLR Article 31 (governing discovery in litigation) constitutes a blanket exemption from FOIL disclosure requirements.
3. Whether the specificity requirements for document requests under CPLR 3120 apply to FOIL requests under Public Officers Law § 89(3).
Holding
1. No, because FOIL provides a broad right of public access to government records that is independent of a party’s status as a litigant. A litigant does not forfeit their FOIL rights simply because they are engaged in litigation with the agency.
2. No, because CPLR Article 31 does not demonstrate clear legislative intent to establish and preserve confidentiality that would qualify it as a specific exemption under FOIL.
3. No, because FOIL requires only that records be “reasonably described” so that the agency can locate them, whereas CPLR 3120 demands that documents be “specifically designated.”
Court’s Reasoning
The Court reasoned that FOIL implements the principle that “government is the public’s business” and aims for broad disclosure. FOIL exemptions are narrowly interpreted, and the agency bears the burden of proving an exemption applies. The court stated “the standing of one who seeks access to records under the Freedom of Information Law is as a member of the public, and neither enhanced… nor restricted… because he is also a litigant or potential litigant.” CPLR Article 31, on the other hand, is more restrictive and depends on status and need related to the litigation. The court found no legislative intent to create an exemption from FOIL for agencies involved in litigation or to prevent the simultaneous use of both statutes.
Article 31 document production in FOIL would depend not on the need to maintain individual privacy or the government’s need for confidentiality of the records but on the status of the party making the request.
The court addressed concerns about potential abuse of FOIL during litigation but stated that this possibility is “a price of open government” that should not undermine the statute. The court also clarified that the specificity requirement for FOIL requests is less stringent than that under CPLR 3120, requiring only a “reasonable description” of the records sought. The Court remanded for an in camera inspection.