Ahmed v. Yin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ahmed v. Yin

117 A.D.3d 429, 985 N.Y.S.2d 50

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMay 1, 2014

StatusPublished

This text of 117 A.D.3d 429 (Ahmed v. Yin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ahmed v. Yin, 117 A.D.3d 429, 985 N.Y.S.2d 50 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol E. Huff, J.), entered on or about October 11, 2012, denying the petition seeking to compel respondents to disclose, among other things, a presentence report (PSR) pursuant to the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL), and granting respondents’ cross motion to dismiss the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondents denied petitioner’s FOIL request on the ground that the PSR had been destroyed in accordance with a records retention schedule. “Nothing in [FOIL] shall he construed to require any entity to prepare any record not possessed or maintained by such entity,” except for certain categories of records not at issue here (Public Officers Law § 89 [3] [a]). Thus, respondents were “not required (nor able) to provide petitioner with the requested records” (Matter of Adams v Hirsch, 182 AD2d 583, 583 [1st Dept 1992]).

We have considered petitioner’s remaining contentions and [430]*430find them unavailing.

Concur—Mazzarelli, J.E, Renwick, Feinman, Gische and Kapnick, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol E. Huff, J.), entered on or about October 11, 2012, denying the petition seeking to compel respondents to disclose, among other things, a presentence report (PSR) pursuant to the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL), and granting respondents’ cross motion to dismiss the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondents denied petitioner’s FOIL request on the ground that the PSR had been destroyed in accordance with a records retention schedule. “Nothing in [FOIL] shall he construed to require any entity to prepare any record not possessed or maintained by such entity,” except for certain categories of records not at issue here (Public Officers Law § 89 [3] [a]). Thus, respondents were “not required (nor able) to provide petitioner with the requested records” (Matter of Adams v Hirsch, 182 AD2d 583, 583 [1st Dept 1992]).

We have considered petitioner’s remaining contentions and [430]*430find them unavailing.

Concur—Mazzarelli, J.E, Renwick, Feinman, Gische and Kapnick, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

117 A.D.3d 429, 985 N.Y.S.2d 50, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ahmed-v-yin-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack