Bly v. City of Yonkers, Supreme Court, Westchester County, March 17, 2009 - -
Involved request for records concerning 1952 murder of labor leader that "was never solved, and the murder investigation remains open." Request was denied "in its entirety" based on section 87(2)(e)(i), (ii), (iii) and (iv). Court emphasized an agency's responsibility to meet the burden of proof, stating that: "While there is precedent for delaying disclosure of police reports until the completion of a pending law enforcement investigation or prosecution of criminal charges, the Court finds that under the facts and circumstances of this case, Respondents have failed to articulate sufficient reasons why the requested documents are exempt from disclosure", citing Gould and rejecting a "blanket" denial of access. Respondents' "justification of the claim to exemption consists mostly of conclusory and generalized policy concerns." See also Markowitz regarding burden of proof.
Gould, Scott and DeFelice v. New York City Police Department, 653 NYS2d 54, 89 NY2d 267 (1996) --
Police department's complaint follow-up reports, "DD5's", were withheld in their entirety and Department claimed that police officers' memo books or activity logs were not agency records. Court of Appeals reversed and held that DD5's are subject to rights of access conferred by the Freedom of Information Law and that memo books are agency records. Agency required to review records in their entirety to determine which portions, if any, may justifiably be withheld. Additionally, the Court rejected suggestion that records are exempt because they are "nonfinal"; found that "factual data", a phrase it construed broadly, within such documentation must be disclosed.
Legal Aid Society v. New York City Police Department, Supreme Court, New York County, NYLJ, October 22, 1998 --
Citing Gould, reiterated that the Criminal Procedure Law does not preclude defendants from using FOIL and found that the Police Department "has consistently failed to adhere to its dictates." Denials of access did not refer to specific contents of records and agency staff apparently did not review records prior to denying access. Petitioner sought class certification because each applicant for records "receives the same denial", and court held that "this is one of those rare cases where the continued and obvious resistance on the part of government officials to follow the mandate of the law makes class certification appropriate." Agency in denying access must state "with factual particularity how and why" an exception applies; the rationale for delays in responding to requests must be "explicitly explained".
Bannon v. New York City Police Department, Supreme Court, New York County, September 8, 1997 --
Since agency did not make DD5's available for in camera inspection and the papers did not contain a detailed analysis of their contents, court granted the petition following redaction of information identifying witnesses; held that other aspects of the records, i.e., those involving investigative techniques, must be submitted for in camera review prior to withholding.
Blanche v. Winn and Constantine, Supreme Court, Cayuga County, September 17, 1990 --
Petitioner requested various records, many of which had been destroyed or were not maintained by respondent agencies, which were "under no duty to maintain these files, nor to reconstruct them..."; Court upheld denial of certain forensics reports under §87(2)(e)(iv), victim's phone under §87(2)(b) and certain items of clothing because they were not "records"; was granted access to police reports often redaction names and addresses of victim and victim's mother, an evidence inventory list, a victim's statement under Civil Rights Law, §50-b, as well as sperm samples be provided and State Police investigative report "which does not reveal non-routine investigative techniques which would aid anyone in detection", following deletion of identifying details.
