New York Civil Liberties Union v. City of Schenectady, 2 N.Y.3d 657 (2004)
Government records are presumptively open under New York’s Freedom of Information Law (FOIL), and statutory exemptions to disclosure are narrowly construed, requiring a particularized and specific justification for nondisclosure.
Summary
The New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU) sought access to Schenectady police incident reports pertaining to the use of force. The City initially denied the request, citing an exemption based on a similar Rochester Police Department form deemed exempt in Gannett Co. v. James. However, the City later admitted it did not use a specific “Use of Force” form, but rather referenced such incidents in standard incident and arrest reports. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s decision, finding the denial improper given the City’s acknowledgment that these reports are normally subject to FOIL, and remitted the matter to the Supreme Court to determine which documents should be produced, subject to redaction and in-camera review as necessary. The court emphasized the presumption of openness under FOIL.
Facts
The NYCLU requested documents referencing police use of force from the City of Schenectady. After an initial broad request was narrowed to “incident reports prepared by police officers pertaining to use of force,” the City failed to respond. The NYCLU appealed, and the Department of State Committee on Open Government issued an advisory opinion that the City had failed to comply with FOIL. The City then produced the Police Objective Review Committee’s Annual Reports for 1999 and 2000 and offered access to the Corporation Counsel’s “Claim Book.” Later, the City claimed that a specific “Use of Force” form existed and was exempt.
Procedural History
The NYCLU filed a CPLR article 78 proceeding alleging a FOIL violation. Supreme Court, citing Gannett Co. v. James, agreed with the City that incident reports were exempt. The Appellate Division affirmed, stating that Matter of Gould v. New York City Police Dept. did not overrule Gannett. The Court of Appeals granted the NYCLU leave to appeal. During the appeal process, the City changed its position, stating it did not have a specific