Matter of Rattley v. New York City Police Dept. 96 N.Y.2d 873 (2001)
Under New York’s Freedom of Information Law (FOIL), an agency satisfies its obligation to certify that it cannot locate requested documents by averring that all responsive documents have been disclosed and that it conducted a diligent search for the missing documents; a detailed description of the search or a personal statement from the searcher is not required.
Summary
A prison inmate filed a FOIL request with the New York City Police Department (NYPD) for documents related to his conviction. After delays and a lack of complete response, he filed an Article 78 proceeding. The NYPD claimed some documents were unlocatable after a diligent search. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition as moot, contingent on the NYPD providing an update on the remaining lab reports search. The Appellate Division reversed, requiring more detailed certification of the search. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division, holding that the NYPD’s certification was sufficient because the Department asserted that all responsive documents had been disclosed and that a diligent search for the remaining documents had been conducted.
Facts
Petitioner, a prison inmate, submitted a FOIL request to the NYPD for specific documents concerning his second-degree murder conviction.
The NYPD acknowledged the request, estimating a 120-day processing time.
After no substantive response within the timeframe, the petitioner filed an administrative appeal, claiming constructive denial.
After no response to the administrative appeal, the petitioner initiated a CPLR Article 78 proceeding.
Procedural History
The Supreme Court initially dismissed the Article 78 petition as moot, provided the NYPD updated the petitioner on the missing lab reports within 60 days.
The Appellate Division reversed, finding the NYPD’s certification of a diligent search insufficient, and reinstated the petition.
The New York Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s order, reinstating the Supreme Court’s order dismissing the petition.
Issue(s)
Whether, under Public Officers Law § 89(3), the New York City Police Department adequately certified that it could not locate requested documents by averring that all responsive documents had been disclosed and that it conducted a diligent search for the documents it could not locate, without providing a detailed description of the search or a personal statement from the person who conducted the search.
Holding
Yes, because Public Officers Law § 89(3) does not specify the manner in which an agency must certify that documents cannot be located. The Department satisfied the certification requirement by averring that all responsive documents had been disclosed and that it had conducted a diligent search for the documents it could not locate.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals emphasized that Public Officers Law § 89(3) mandates certification of non-possession or inability to locate records after a diligent search but does not dictate the form of certification. The court reasoned that requiring a detailed search description or personal statement would place an unreasonable burden on agencies responding to FOIL requests. The Court explicitly stated that “[n]either a detailed description of the search nor a personal statement from the person who actually conducted the search is required.” The court found that the NYPD’s assertion that all responsive documents had been disclosed and that a diligent search had been conducted satisfied the statutory requirement. The Court stated, “Here, the Department satisfied the certification requirement by averring that all responsive documents had been disclosed and that it had conducted a diligent search for the documents it could not locate.” The Court disapproved of prior Appellate Division decisions that imposed stricter certification requirements, clarifying that those decisions should not be followed. The Court concluded that because the Police Department rectified its failure to respond to the FOIL request, the Article 78 proceeding was properly dismissed as moot.