New York Law Review

Tag: FOIL

  • Empire Center v. NY State Teachers’ Retirement System, 23 N.Y.3d 440 (2014): FOIL and Disclosure of Retiree Names

    Empire Center for N.Y. State Policy v. New York State Teachers’ Retirement Sys., 23 N.Y.3d 440 (2014)

    Under New York’s Freedom of Information Law (FOIL), the names of retirees receiving benefits from public employee retirement systems are subject to disclosure, while their home addresses remain exempt.

    Summary

    The Empire Center sought disclosure of the names of retired members from the New York State Teachers’ Retirement System and the Teachers’ Retirement System of the City of New York under FOIL. The retirement systems refused, citing Public Officers Law § 89(7), which protects the home addresses of retirees. The Court of Appeals reversed the lower courts’ decisions, holding that the statute explicitly exempts only home addresses, not the names, of retirees. The Court distinguished its prior decision in Matter of New York Veteran Police Assn., clarifying that it only applied to requests for both names and addresses, not names alone.

    Facts

    The Empire Center for New York State Policy, a “think tank,” requested the names of retired members from two retirement systems under FOIL.
    The retirement systems denied the request, citing Public Officers Law § 89(7).
    The Empire Center then filed Article 78 proceedings to compel disclosure.

    Procedural History

    Supreme Court dismissed both petitions.
    The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court’s decisions.
    The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal and reversed the Appellate Division’s orders.

    Issue(s)

    Whether Public Officers Law § 89(7) exempts the names of retirees from disclosure under FOIL, or only their home addresses.

    Holding

    No, because Public Officers Law § 89(7) explicitly exempts only the home addresses of retirees, not their names. The statute differentiates between “retirees” and “beneficiaries,” exempting both the name and address of the latter, but only the address of the former.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court’s reasoning hinged on the plain language of Public Officers Law § 89(7), which states that “Nothing in this article shall require the disclosure of the home address … of a retiree,” but does not similarly restrict the disclosure of a retiree’s name. The court emphasized the contrast between the treatment of retirees and “beneficiaries,” for whom both name and address are protected.

    The Court distinguished its prior ruling in Matter of New York Veteran Police Assn. v New York City Police Dept. Art. I Pension Fund, where it had appeared to deny a request for names and addresses of retirees. The Court clarified that the Veteran Police case only addressed the denial of a request for both names and addresses. Since the Empire Center only sought the names, the prior ruling was not controlling.

    The Court also addressed the retirement systems’ argument that disclosing names could lead to an “unwarranted invasion of personal privacy” under Public Officers Law § 87(2)(b). The Court dismissed this concern as speculative, noting that the Empire Center was not seeking the information for solicitation or fund-raising purposes, which would trigger the privacy exemption. The Court stated that the privacy exemption could be reconsidered if future FOIL requests raised similar privacy concerns, particularly if they involved solicitation.

    The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to the specific language of the statute and cautioned against reading its prior decisions too broadly, stating, “Our decisions are not to be read as deciding questions that were not before us and that we did not consider.”

  • Harbatkin v. New York City Dept. of Records & Info. Servs., 19 N.Y.3d 370 (2012): Balancing Privacy Interests and Public Access to Historical Records Under FOIL

    Harbatkin v. New York City Dept. of Records & Info. Servs., 19 N.Y.3d 370 (2012)

    Under New York’s Freedom of Information Law (FOIL), when deciding whether disclosing information constitutes an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, courts must balance the privacy interests at stake against the public interest in disclosure, and the government cannot break a promise of confidentiality made to individuals, even after a significant period has passed.

    Summary

    An historian sought unredacted transcripts of interviews conducted by the New York City Board of Education during its “Anti-Communist Investigations” in the mid-20th century. The City had redacted names and identifying information, citing privacy concerns. The Court of Appeals held that while names of individuals mentioned in the transcripts (but not interviewed) should be disclosed due to the diminished privacy concerns over time, the identities of interviewees who were promised confidentiality should remain protected to uphold the government’s promise, balancing the interests of historical transparency and individual privacy. This case clarifies the application of FOIL exemptions for privacy interests in the context of historical records.

    Facts

    The New York City Board of Education conducted “Anti-Communist Investigations” from the 1930s to the 1960s, intensely during the 1940s and 1950s, interviewing approximately 1,100 individuals. Interviewees were promised confidentiality. An historian, whose parents were targets of these investigations, sought access to the City’s records. The City’s Department of Records and Information Services redacted names and identifying information under a rule requiring redaction unless the person or their heirs consented to disclosure. The historian rejected the City’s offer to access unredacted files if she agreed not to publish names, and filed suit to compel disclosure without redaction.

    Procedural History

    The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the City could redact the documents to avoid an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. The Appellate Division affirmed. The historian appealed to the Court of Appeals as of right, arguing a constitutional issue, and also moved for permission to appeal. The Court of Appeals retained the appeal as of right but ultimately dismissed it on constitutional grounds, granted the motion for permission to appeal, and modified the Appellate Division’s order.

    Issue(s)

    Whether, under New York’s Freedom of Information Law (FOIL), the City’s redaction of names and identifying information from transcripts of the Board of Education’s Anti-Communist Investigations, to protect the privacy of individuals mentioned or interviewed, constitutes an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, considering the historical context and promises of confidentiality.

    Holding

    No, in part and yes, in part. The redaction of names of individuals mentioned in the interviews, but not promised confidentiality, is not permissible because the privacy interest has diminished over time. Yes, the redaction of names and identifying details of interviewees who were promised confidentiality is permissible because the government must uphold its promise, even after a long period.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court applied Public Officers Law § 87 (2) (b), which allows agencies to deny access to records that would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. Because none of the specific examples of unwarranted invasion of privacy in Public Officers Law § 89 (2) (b) applied, the Court balanced the privacy interests against the public interest in disclosure, citing Matter of New York Times Co. v City of N.Y. Fire Dept., 4 NY3d 477, 485 (2005). The Court reasoned that the privacy interests of those merely mentioned in the interviews had diminished over time because the stigma associated with being labeled a Communist had lessened. Therefore, disclosing their names would not be an unwarranted invasion of privacy. However, the Court emphasized the importance of upholding the government’s promise of confidentiality to interviewees, stating, “We find it unacceptable for the government to break that promise, even after all these years.” The Court acknowledged that the risk of harm to the interviewees or their families might be small, but the promise must be honored. The decision reflects a balancing act between historical transparency and the protection of individual privacy rights, particularly when a promise of confidentiality was made.

  • Town of Waterford v. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, 18 N.Y.3d 647 (2012): Clarifying the Scope of FOIL’s Inter-Agency Exemption

    18 N.Y.3d 647 (2012)

    The Freedom of Information Law’s (FOIL) inter-agency and intra-agency exemption, which protects predecisional deliberative materials, does not extend to communications between a New York state agency and a federal agency because the statutory definition of “agency” is limited to state and municipal entities.

    Summary

    The Town of Waterford sought information from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) regarding the Hudson River dredging project, particularly concerning alternative water supplies due to PCB contamination. The DEC denied access to certain records exchanged with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), claiming the inter-agency exemption under FOIL. The New York Court of Appeals held that the inter-agency exemption does not apply to communications with federal agencies, as the FOIL statute defines “agency” as state or municipal entities only. The court emphasized FOIL’s policy of open government and narrow interpretation of exemptions, ordering the release of the withheld documents.

    Facts

    The EPA placed a 200-mile portion of the Hudson River on the National Priorities List in 1984 due to PCB contamination.
    The EPA, DEC, and New York State Department of Health (DOH) collaborated on addressing the contamination, with the EPA as the lead agency.
    In 2002, the EPA approved a remediation plan requiring dredging, and General Electric (GE) was directed to prepare a “Water Supply Options Analysis” for the Towns of Waterford and Halfmoon.
    The Town of Waterford subsequently made a FOIL request to DEC seeking documents related to alternative water supplies, PCB levels, and modifications to regulations governing PCB exposure, along with materials related to GE’s analysis.

    Procedural History

    The DEC provided some documents but withheld others, citing the inter-agency or intra-agency exemption and other state/federal law exemptions.
    The Town commenced a CPLR Article 78 proceeding challenging the withholding.
    Supreme Court directed disclosure of additional records, finding the EPA was not an “agency” under the Public Officers Law.
    The Appellate Division modified, holding that communications between federal and state agencies could be considered deliberative material subject to exemption, and remitted for in camera review.
    Supreme Court then concluded the records qualified as exempt deliberative material.
    The Town appealed to the Court of Appeals.

    Issue(s)

    Whether communications with the EPA, a federal agency, fall within the inter-agency or intra-agency exemption for predecisional materials under Public Officers Law § 87(2)(g).

    Holding

    No, because the statutory definition of “agency” in the Public Officers Law is explicitly limited to state and municipal entities, and does not include federal agencies like the EPA.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals emphasized that FOIL is based on the principle that “the public is vested with an inherent right to know and that official secrecy is anathematic to our form of government.” Therefore, FOIL must be liberally construed, and its exemptions narrowly interpreted.
    The statute defines “agency” as “any state or municipal department, board, bureau, division, commission, committee, public authority, public corporation, council, office or other governmental entity performing a governmental or proprietary function for the state or any one or more municipalities thereof, except the judiciary or the state legislature” (Public Officers Law § 86 [3]).
    The Court rejected the DEC’s argument that the definition of “agency” should not apply to the phrases “inter-agency” and “intra-agency,” finding no indication of legislative intent to treat the term differently.
    While acknowledging the collaborative relationship between the EPA and DEC, the Court distinguished the EPA from an outside consultant retained by an agency. The Court noted the EPA was the lead agency and represented different constituencies, whose interests may diverge.
    The Court cited the Committee on Open Government’s opinion that the EPA cannot be characterized as a consultant “retained” by the DEC and that the definition of “agency” does not include federal agencies.
    The Court concluded that the DEC failed to meet its burden of proving that the requested material fell within the statutory exemption. “It would make little sense to protect the deliberative process when such reports are prepared by agency employees yet deny this protection when reports are prepared for the same purpose by outside consultants retained by agencies”.

  • Schenectady County SPCA v. Mills, 16 N.Y.3d 44 (2010): Redaction Required for FOIL Requests

    Schenectady County Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Inc. v. Mills, 16 N.Y.3d 44 (2010)

    An agency responding to a Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) request must redact a record to remove exempt information if it can do so without unreasonable difficulty, rather than withhold the entire record.

    Summary

    Schenectady County SPCA requested a list of names and addresses of licensed veterinarians and veterinary technicians from the New York State Education Department under FOIL. The Department offered names and city/state portions of addresses but refused to provide street addresses, claiming they could not distinguish between business and residential addresses. The SPCA sought only business addresses. The Court of Appeals held that the Department could not refuse to produce the entire record simply because some of it might be exempt. The court emphasized the duty to redact exempt information when reasonably possible, to fulfill FOIL obligations efficiently.

    Facts

    The Schenectady County Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) requested, via email and then formally under FOIL, a list of names and addresses of licensed veterinarians and veterinary technicians in Schenectady County from the Education Department.

    The Department offered a list of names, cities, and states but refused to provide street addresses, stating that it did not provide home addresses for licensed professionals and could not distinguish between business and residential addresses in its computerized files.

    The SPCA clarified it was seeking only business addresses.

    Procedural History

    The Supreme Court dismissed the SPCA’s petition to compel production of the list.

    The Appellate Division reversed the Supreme Court’s decision and granted the petition, compelling the Department to produce the list.

    The Department appealed to the New York Court of Appeals as of right.

    Issue(s)

    Whether an agency responding to a FOIL request may withhold a record entirely because some of the information in that record may be exempt from disclosure, even if the exempt information could be redacted.

    Holding

    No, because an agency responding to a FOIL request must redact the record to remove exempt information if it can do so without unreasonable difficulty, rather than withhold the entire record.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals held that the Education Department could not refuse to produce the entire list of names and addresses simply because it contained some information (home addresses) that might be exempt from disclosure under FOIL’s privacy provisions.

    The Court reasoned that the SPCA was only seeking business addresses, which the Department did not claim were private. The Court found it “obvious” that the Department should simply delete the home addresses from the list, especially because the SPCA was only seeking business addresses.

    The Court distinguished between creating a new record (which FOIL generally does not require) and redacting an existing one. Citing Matter of Data Tree, LLC v Romaine, 9 NY3d 454, 464 (2007), the court noted that “even when a document subject to FOIL contains . . . private, protected information, agencies may be required to prepare a redacted version with the exempt material removed.”

    The Court criticized the extensive litigation of the case, stating, “It seems that an agency sensitive to its FOIL obligations could have furnished petitioner a redacted list with a few hours’ effort, and at negligible cost.” The Court expressed its hope that the Department and other government agencies would comply with their FOIL obligations more efficiently in the future.

  • Beechwood Restorative Care Center v. Signor, 5 N.Y.3d 435 (2005): Recovery of Attorney’s Fees Under FOIL

    5 N.Y.3d 435 (2005)

    To recover attorney’s fees under New York’s Freedom of Information Law (FOIL), a party must demonstrate that the records obtained were of clearly significant interest to the general public, and the agency lacked a reasonable basis for withholding the record.

    Summary

    Beechwood Restorative Care Center sought attorney’s fees after successfully compelling the New York State Department of Health (DOH) to release documents under FOIL. Beechwood argued that the documents, related to the closure of its nursing facility, were of significant public interest. The Court of Appeals held that while Beechwood substantially prevailed in obtaining the documents, it failed to demonstrate that the specific records released were of clearly significant interest to the general public, as required for fee recovery under FOIL. The court also held that the New York State Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) does not apply to FOIL proceedings.

    Facts

    The New York State Department of Health (DOH) initiated proceedings to revoke Beechwood Restorative Care Center’s license due to substandard care allegations. Between August 1999 and January 2001, Beechwood submitted 17 FOIL requests to DOH seeking documents related to DOH procedures and Beechwood’s license revocation. DOH provided some documents, but Beechwood claimed non-compliance regarding 12 requests. This prompted Beechwood to file suit seeking the remaining documents and attorney’s fees.

    Procedural History

    Beechwood commenced a CPLR Article 78 proceeding in Supreme Court, alleging DOH failed to respond to FOIL requests. Supreme Court ordered DOH to provide affidavits detailing their search efforts. After multiple rounds of affidavits and document production, Beechwood moved for attorney’s fees under FOIL and the EAJA. Supreme Court denied the motion, finding Beechwood failed to demonstrate the records were of significant public interest and that the EAJA was inapplicable. The Appellate Division affirmed. The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.

    Issue(s)

    1. Whether the lower courts erred in determining that Beechwood failed to establish that the records obtained were of clearly significant interest to the general public, as required for an attorney’s fee award under FOIL.

    2. Whether the counsel fee provision in the New York State Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) applies to FOIL proceedings.

    Holding

    1. No, because the records themselves must be of significant interest to the public, and Beechwood failed to demonstrate such interest in the documents it obtained from DOH.

    2. No, because the EAJA’s counsel fee provision does not apply when another statute, such as FOIL, specifically provides for counsel fees.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals emphasized that to recover attorney’s fees under FOIL, the specific records disclosed must be of “clearly significant interest to the general public” (Public Officers Law § 89[4][c][i]). The Court distinguished between public interest in the event (the nursing home closure) and public interest in the records themselves. Beechwood failed to show how the general agency records, job descriptions, employee training documents, and internal communications were of significant interest to the public. The Court cited the legislative history, noting that the public interest standard was intentionally tightened to require more than just potential public interest. Because Beechwood failed to satisfy this requirement, its claim for attorney’s fees under FOIL failed. Regarding the EAJA, the Court pointed to the statute’s introductory proviso, which states that the EAJA applies “except as otherwise specifically provided by statute” (CPLR 8601[a]). Since FOIL specifically provides for attorney’s fees in FOIL proceedings, the EAJA is inapplicable. The court emphasized that “the bill clarifies and tightens the public interest standard by requiring that the record be of ‘clearly significant interest to the general public’ and not just ‘potentially’ so” (Governor’s Mem approving L 1982, ch 73, 1982 NY Legis Ann, at 47). The court reinforced the principle that simply using the documents in litigation against the government does not automatically establish public interest. The court explicitly states that FOIL is a statute that “otherwise specifically provide[s]” an attorneys’ fee standard to be applied, thus, Beechwood may not seek counsel fees pursuant to the EAJA.

  • 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.

  • Matter of Rattley v. New York City Police Dept., 96 N.Y.2d 873 (2001): Sufficiency of Agency Certification in FOIL Requests

    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.

  • 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.

  • Mantica v. New York State Department of Health, 94 N.Y.2d 58 (1999): Patient Access to Medical Records Under FOIL

    Mantica v. New York State Department of Health, 94 N.Y.2d 58 (1999)

    A patient may obtain their own medical records from a state agency under New York’s Freedom of Information Law (FOIL), even with Public Health Law § 18(6)’s restrictions on third-party redisclosure, unless those records contain information that could cause substantial harm to the patient or others, or contain privileged doctor’s notes.

    Summary

    James Mantica sought his medical records from the New York State Department of Health (DOH) under FOIL after receiving allegedly deficient medical care. DOH denied the request, citing Public Health Law § 18(6), which restricts third-party redisclosure of patient information. The New York Court of Appeals held that Mantica was entitled to his records because the intent of Public Health Law § 18(6) was not to prevent patients from accessing their own medical records, but rather to prevent disclosure to other third parties. The Court emphasized that FOIL mandates broad disclosure unless a specific statutory exemption applies and the agency demonstrates that the material qualifies for exemption.

    Facts

    James Mantica received allegedly deficient medical care at St. Peter’s Hospital, leading to the amputation of his legs. His wife filed a complaint with the DOH. Subsequently, the Manticas commenced a medical malpractice action against several physicians and the hospital. They requested Mantica’s medical records from DOH, who provided redacted versions of some documents. When a second, more detailed request invoking FOIL was denied, the Manticas initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding to compel disclosure.

    Procedural History

    The Supreme Court initially ordered disclosure, except for quality assurance review activities. The Appellate Division affirmed, stating that denying a patient their own health information was illogical. The New York Court of Appeals granted DOH leave to appeal, limiting the scope to the production of Mantica’s medical records.

    Issue(s)

    Whether a patient can obtain their own medical records from a state agency under FOIL, notwithstanding Public Health Law § 18(6)’s prohibition against redisclosure of patient information by third parties.

    Holding

    Yes, because the legislative intent of Public Health Law § 18(6) was to protect patient privacy by preventing disclosure to third parties, not to deny patients access to their own medical information. Public Health Law § 18(3) and (4) might provide a specific statutory exception to FOIL, and the patient might be required to obtain the records directly from the health care provider pursuant to section 18, if the records contain information that could cause substantial harm to the patient or others, or contain privileged doctor’s notes.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals reasoned that FOIL imposes a broad standard of open disclosure on government agencies, and documents are presumptively discoverable unless a specific statutory exemption applies. The burden rests on the agency to demonstrate that the requested material qualifies for exemption. DOH argued that Public Health Law § 18(6) provided such an exemption. However, the court determined that the intent of § 18(6) was to prevent disclosure of confidential medical records to third parties, not to patients themselves. The Court cited the legislative record, including a DOH memorandum recommending approval of the bill, which stated, “There is no legitimate reason to withhold information related to a person’s physical health from that person particularly when insurers, government agencies and employers are routinely granted access.” The Court clarified that a patient’s right to access their records is not absolute; Public Health Law § 18(3) allows denial of access if the information could cause “substantial and identifiable harm” or contains privileged doctors’ notes, with a detailed mechanism for administrative and judicial review. However, since there was no allegation of harmful information or privileged notes in this case, § 18(3) and (4) did not provide an exemption to FOIL. The Court emphasized that the patient’s right to obtain the records under FOIL is not diminished by the possibility of obtaining them directly from the hospital under § 18. The Court stated, “Information so disclosed should be kept confidential by the party receiving such information and the limitations on such disclosure in this section shall apply to such party.”

  • Citizens for Alternatives to Animal Labs, Inc. v. Board of Trustees of the State University of New York, 87 N.Y.2d 357 (1995): Mandated Records and FOIL Disclosure

    Citizens for Alternatives to Animal Labs, Inc. v. Board of Trustees of the State University of New York, 87 N.Y.2d 357 (1995)

    Records held by a state agency are subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL), regardless of whether they are maintained to comply with a federal mandate, unless a specific statutory exemption applies.

    Summary

    Citizens sought access to records held by SUNY regarding the source of animals used in research, as required by the federal Animal Welfare Act. SUNY denied the request, arguing it was not acting as a state agency when maintaining federally mandated records. The New York Court of Appeals reversed, holding that SUNY was an agency under FOIL, and the records were subject to disclosure because the function or purpose for which an agency’s documents are generated or held is not a basis for denying disclosure unless a specific statutory exemption applies. The case reinforces FOIL’s broad disclosure mandate.

    Facts

    SUNY’s Health Science Center at Brooklyn (SUNY HSC-B) conducts biomedical research using dogs and cats. The federal Animal Welfare Act requires dealers providing “random source” animals to research facilities like SUNY HSC-B to furnish certifications. These certifications contain data about the source of the animals, including the name and address of the provider. The Act aims to protect pet owners from theft by preventing the sale of stolen animals. Citizens for Alternatives to Animal Labs, Inc. requested access to these certifications under New York’s Freedom of Information Law (FOIL).

    Procedural History

    The Record Access Officer for SUNY HSC-B denied the FOIL request. Petitioners administratively appealed, but the denial was affirmed. Petitioners commenced a CPLR article 78 proceeding. Supreme Court granted the petition, directing SUNY to provide the requested documents. The Appellate Division reversed, holding SUNY HSC-B was not an “agency” under FOIL when maintaining records pursuant to federal mandate. The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.

    Issue(s)

    Whether SUNY HSC-B is an “agency” under Public Officers Law § 86(3) when maintaining random source certifications pursuant to a federal mandate, thus making those records subject to FOIL disclosure?

    Holding

    Yes, because SUNY HSC-B is an integral part of SUNY, which is an agency under FOIL, and the records were kept in connection with SUNY’s research mission, which constitutes a state governmental function. The purpose for which the certifications were kept (complying with a federal mandate) does not remove them from FOIL’s scope.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals emphasized that SUNY is an “agency” under FOIL, and SUNY HSC-B is an integral part of SUNY. SUNY HSC-B was fulfilling SUNY’s mission to provide educational services and facilitate research, a State governmental function. The court rejected the Appellate Division’s rationale that complying with a federal mandate exempted the records from FOIL. The Court stated that “FOIL’S scope is not to be limited based on the purpose for which the document was produced or the function to which it relates.” Quoting from Capital Newspapers v. Whalen, 69 N.Y.2d 246, 252-253 (1987), the court emphasized that FOIL’s scope is not limited by the purpose for which a document was produced. The Court distinguished Matter of American Socy. for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals v Board of Trustees, 79 NY2d 927 (1992), noting that case concerned the Open Meetings Law and a committee whose powers derived solely from federal law, whereas SUNY HSC-B is part of a state agency performing a state function. The Court clarified that records kept by an “agency” are subject to disclosure unless a specific exception in Public Officers Law § 87(2) applies. Since respondents did not preserve any claim of a specific statutory exemption, the records were subject to disclosure. The Court emphasized the legislative goal of liberal disclosure under FOIL, limited only by narrowly defined exemptions. It noted the importance of transparency and accountability in government operations, which FOIL aims to promote.