13 N.Y.3d 882 (2009)
Under New York’s Freedom of Information Law (FOIL), an agency denying access to records must provide a particularized and specific justification for withholding the documents, demonstrating how a specific exemption applies; generalized claims are insufficient.
Summary
West Harlem Business Group (WHBG) sought documents from Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC) related to Columbia University’s campus construction under FOIL. ESDC initially denied access based on a broad exemption, later changing its justification during litigation. The court ordered disclosure, finding ESDC failed to provide a sufficiently detailed explanation of why specific exemptions applied. The Court of Appeals affirmed, emphasizing that agencies must articulate specific reasons for withholding documents under FOIL, rather than relying on blanket assertions of exemptions. This case highlights the importance of agency transparency and accountability in responding to FOIL requests.
Facts
WHBG, a business association, submitted FOIL requests to ESDC concerning Columbia University’s construction project. One request sought documents related to an agreement between Columbia and ESDC. ESDC denied the request, citing an exemption for impairing contract awards or collective bargaining negotiations. During subsequent litigation, ESDC changed its rationale, claiming exemptions for inter-agency materials and attorney-client privileged communications. ESDC provided documents for in-camera review but failed to specify which exemption applied to each document.
Procedural History
WHBG initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding after ESDC denied its FOIL request. Supreme Court ordered an in-camera review of the withheld documents. Dissatisfied with ESDC’s lack of specificity, the Supreme Court created its own document log and ordered disclosure. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court’s decision. ESDC appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether ESDC met its burden under FOIL to justify withholding documents by articulating a particularized and specific justification for claiming that the requested documents were exempt from disclosure under Public Officers Law § 87(2)(a) and (g).
Holding
No, because ESDC provided only conclusory characterizations of the records without sufficiently identifying the particular exemption to which the submitted records were subject; therefore, ESDC failed to meet its burden of proof relative to the exemptions, and the Supreme Court properly ordered disclosure of the documents.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals emphasized that ESDC had a duty to conduct a diligent search for responsive documents and to fully explain in writing the reasons for denying access. The court criticized ESDC for initially relying on a broad exemption and later changing its justification during litigation, characterizing this as a failure to comply with FOIL’s requirements. The Court found that ESDC’s conclusory characterizations of the records were insufficient to meet its burden of establishing that the documents were exempt from disclosure. ESDC failed to articulate a particularized and specific justification for each document, instead providing blanket assertions of exemptions. Quoting Church of Scientology of N.Y. v State of New York, 46 NY2d 906, 907-908 (1979), the Court stated that ESDC provided “conclusory characterizations” of the records sought. Because ESDC failed to meet its burden of proof regarding the exemptions, the Supreme Court properly ordered disclosure of the documents. The court noted that it is not the function of the Supreme Court to apply the exemptions for the agency. This case reinforces the principle that agencies must provide detailed and specific explanations when denying access to records under FOIL.