New York Law Review

Tag: Cornell University

  • Alderson v. New York State College of Agriculture and Life Sciences at Cornell University, 4 N.Y.3d 225 (2005): Delineating FOIL Access Based on Cornell’s Statutory Autonomy

    Alderson v. New York State College of Agriculture and Life Sciences at Cornell University, 4 N.Y.3d 225 (2005)

    When determining whether Cornell University is subject to Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) requests regarding its management of statutory colleges, courts must examine whether the requested documents relate to activities over which Cornell exercises statutory autonomy or to the expenditure of public funds, for which it is accountable to the state.

    Summary

    This case clarifies the scope of FOIL applicability to Cornell University concerning its administration of statutory colleges. The Court of Appeals held that while Cornell is generally a private institution, its management of state-funded statutory colleges involves “public aspects” subject to FOIL. However, this subjection is not absolute. Documents related to Cornell’s autonomous management of research and academic activities are exempt. Documents about the expenditure of public funds are subject to FOIL, as Cornell is accountable to the state in this regard. The case was remitted to determine which documents fell into each category.

    Facts

    Jeremy Alderson, a radio host, submitted FOIL requests to Cornell University seeking documents related to research activities and financial matters at the New York State Agricultural Experiment Station and a proposed Agricultural Technology Park. Cornell denied the requests, claiming it was not a state agency subject to FOIL.

    Procedural History

    Alderson sued Cornell, seeking a declaration that it was required to respond to the FOIL requests. The Supreme Court initially denied Cornell’s motion to dismiss, later ruling that Cornell had to provide the documents because the Agricultural Experiment Station served a public purpose. The Appellate Division affirmed. The Supreme Court then ordered Cornell to turn over most of the requested documents after an in-camera inspection, although some were exempted as trade secrets. Cornell appealed, challenging the ruling that it was a state agency subject to FOIL.

    Issue(s)

    Whether Cornell University, in managing the New York State College of Agriculture and Life Sciences and the New York State Agricultural Experiment Station, is a state agency subject to FOIL regarding: 1) documents pertaining to research and other academic activities, and 2) documents involving financial records and expenditures or sources of funding.

    Holding

    1. No, because Education Law § 5712 grants Cornell broad authority over educational policies, activities, and operations, including research work, at the statutory colleges.

    2. Yes, because the Legislature maintained the right to oversee Cornell’s use of public funding in managing the statutory colleges, making Cornell accountable for the expenditure of public funds.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals distinguished its prior holding in Matter of Stoll v New York State Coll. of Veterinary Medicine at Cornell Univ. (94 NY2d 162 [1999]), emphasizing that the nature of the activity underlying the FOIL request is critical. Applying the relevant statutes, particularly Education Law §§ 5712 and 5713, the Court found that Cornell exercises complete autonomy over research and academic activities at the statutory colleges. The Court quoted Education Law § 5712 (2), stating that Cornell “shall . . . administer the said college of agriculture and life sciences as to . . . all other matters pertaining to its educational policies, activities and operations, including research work.” Therefore, documents related to these activities pertain to a private function and are not subject to FOIL.

    However, the Court acknowledged that Cornell is subject to financial reporting requirements under Education Law § 5712 (4), which mandates an annual statement detailing the expenditure of public funds. Because the Legislature did not cede complete control of financial issues, Cornell is performing a public function to the extent it is accountable for public funds. Documents related to this public accounting function are subject to FOIL. The court reasoned that to the extent that Cornell is accountable for the expenditure of public funds, “it is performing a public function. Documents relating to this activity are subject to FOIL.”

    The Court remitted the case because the record was insufficient to determine which documents related to research activities (exempt from FOIL) and which related to the expenditure of public funds (subject to FOIL). This established a framework for assessing future FOIL requests concerning Cornell’s statutory colleges, based on the degree of Cornell’s statutory autonomy over the activities to which the requested documents relate.

  • Stoll v. New York State College of Veterinary Medicine, 94 N.Y.2d 162 (1999): Determines FOIL applicability to Cornell’s Statutory Colleges

    Stoll v. New York State College of Veterinary Medicine, 94 N.Y.2d 162 (1999)

    Records related to disciplinary actions against faculty at Cornell University’s statutory colleges are not subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) because Cornell acts independently in these matters, not as an agent of the State.

    Summary

    This case addresses whether Cornell University, while administering New York State’s statutory colleges, is subject to the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) regarding faculty disciplinary records. The Court of Appeals held that Cornell acts independently in these matters, not as an agent of the State, and therefore is not subject to FOIL. The Court reasoned that while the state provides funding and owns the property, Cornell maintains sufficient autonomy in its operations to be considered a private entity for the purposes of faculty discipline. The dissent argued that Cornell acts as a representative of the State University Trustees and thus should be subject to FOIL.

    Facts

    The plaintiff sought records concerning disciplinary actions taken against a professor at the New York State College of Veterinary Medicine, a statutory college administered by Cornell University. Cornell denied the request, claiming it was not an “agency” subject to FOIL. The statutory colleges are funded by the state, and the state owns the buildings and property. Cornell, however, manages the colleges, including faculty appointments, disciplinary actions, and educational policies.

    Procedural History

    The Supreme Court initially granted the petitioner’s application, ordering Cornell to release the documents. The Appellate Division reversed, holding that Cornell was not an agency subject to FOIL. The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.

    Issue(s)

    Whether Cornell University, in administering the New York State statutory colleges, acts as an “agency” of the State and is therefore subject to the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) regarding records of faculty disciplinary proceedings.

    Holding

    No, because Cornell University, while administering the statutory colleges, acts with sufficient independence and is not considered an agent of the state for purposes of faculty disciplinary proceedings; therefore, it is not subject to FOIL regarding these records.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court reasoned that the key inquiry is whether the entity is performing a governmental function. While the statutory colleges receive state funding and the state owns the property, Cornell maintains significant autonomy in administering the colleges, particularly concerning faculty matters. The Court emphasized that the day-to-day operations and academic decisions are controlled by Cornell, and the disciplinary actions against faculty are internal matters managed by the university’s own policies and procedures. The Court distinguished the statutory colleges from other state agencies, noting Cornell’s unique position as a private university managing state-funded institutions.

    The dissent argued that Education Law explicitly grants Cornell authority to administer the statutory colleges “as the representative of the state university trustees.” To exempt Cornell from FOIL regarding disciplinary actions would undermine the transparency intended by FOIL and contradict the statutory framework. The dissent also distinguished the cases cited by the majority, arguing that they did not involve the specific provisions of the Education Law relating to statutory colleges.