Arms Access Info. v. New York City Police Dept., 79 N.Y.2d 102 (1992)

Under New York’s Freedom of Information Law (FOIL), an agency may deny a request for names and addresses if the list would be used for fundraising purposes, which includes soliciting membership dues to support an organization’s activities.

Summary

Arms Access Information sought the names and addresses of New York City rifle and shotgun permit holders from the New York City Police Department under FOIL, intending to solicit membership dues. The Police Department denied the request, arguing that releasing the information would be an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy because the organization intended to use the list for fundraising. The New York Court of Appeals held that soliciting membership dues to support an organization’s activities constitutes “fundraising” under FOIL, and thus the information could be withheld.

Facts

Arms Access Information, a pro-gun advocacy group, requested the names and addresses of individuals holding rifle or shotgun permits from the New York City Police Department. The group intended to use the information to solicit membership dues to support its activities, including lobbying and providing legal advice to members. The Police Department denied the request, citing the privacy exemption in Public Officers Law §§ 87(2)(b) and 89(2)(b)(iii), arguing that the release would be used for fundraising purposes.

Procedural History

Arms Access Information initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking to compel the Police Department to release the requested information. The Supreme Court initially granted the petition, then adhered to its original determination after reargument, despite finding the New York City Administrative Code inapplicable. The Appellate Division affirmed. The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.

Issue(s)

Whether a request under the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) for the names and addresses of persons holding rifle or shotgun permits may be denied as an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy because the requesting organization seeks the information to solicit membership dues to support its activities, which the Police Department argues constitutes “fund-raising” as the term is used in Public Officers Law § 89 (2) (b) (iii).

Holding

Yes, because soliciting membership dues to support the general activities of an organization and further its overall objectives constitutes “fund-raising” under FOIL, thus allowing the agency to deny the request to protect the privacy of permit holders.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals acknowledged FOIL’s strong policy of public access to government records but emphasized that exemptions must be given their natural and obvious meaning. The court held that soliciting membership dues to support an organization’s activities constitutes “fund-raising” within the meaning of Public Officers Law § 87(2)(b)(iii). The court reasoned that the purpose of the solicitation, to obtain funds to support the organization, is what matters, regardless of the form the solicitation takes or the incidental benefits offered to those who pay dues. The court distinguished this case from those where the information request served a governmental purpose or where disclosure would inform the public about governmental activities. Here, the court found that no governmental purpose was served by disclosing the permit holders’ information. The court stated that the Legislature classified releasing names and addresses for fundraising efforts as an unwarranted invasion of privacy, and it was not the court’s role to weigh the degree of annoyance that would result from the solicitations. “It is enough that the Legislature has seen fit to classify the release of the names and addresses of individuals for use in such fund-raising efforts as an unwarranted invasion of their privacy.”