COULDN’T JUSTIFY “PERSONAL PRIVACY” AND “ENDANGERMENT” CLAIMS
After the NY Civil Liberties Union asked the Village of Freeport for certain law enforcement disciplinary records, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Law, the Village didn’t fully respond to the inquiry. It asserted that the production of information relating to charges that didn't result in discipline constituted an “unwarranted invasion of personal privacy,” and “could endanger the life and safety” of the officers in question.
After an administrative review of that decision was denied, the NYCLU filed a special proceeding – pursuant to CPLR Article 78 – seeking an order from the Nassau County Supreme Court compelling the production. When that request was denied, an appeal followed.
The Appellate Division, Second Department, thought the law required the Village to produce “'complaints, allegations, and charges against an employee,’” and the latter failed to demonstrate how the desired information “fell squarely within the personal privacy exemption or the life and safety exemption.” Given the Village’s “conclusory assertions,” and absent any “evidentiary support,” the AD2 thought the court below should have granted the NYCLU’s request.
And because the law provides that party in a FOIL dispute may be awarded legal fees and litigation costs should it prevail against an agency, the AD2 further directed that the Supreme Court conduct a hearing as to amount to be awarded to NYCLU.
They sure foiled the Village’s resistance there.
# # #
DECISION
Matter of New York Civ. Liberties Union v Village of Freeport