Alexanian v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Alexanian v. City of New York

184 A.D.2d 452, 587 N.Y.S.2d 149, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8608

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

DecidedJune 30, 1992

StatusPublished

This text of 184 A.D.2d 452 (Alexanian v. City of New York) 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

Alexanian v. City of New York, 184 A.D.2d 452, 587 N.Y.S.2d 149, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8608 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alfred Toker, J.), entered on January 10, 1992, which denied petitioner’s CPLR article 78 petition seeking to permit petitioner’s associate to view various records pursuant to the Freedom of Information Law, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Contrary to petitioner’s contentions, the IAS court did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner’s application. The order, which incorporated a prior agreement between the parties, did not authorize additional individuals access to the documents which respondents had agreed to supply petitioner. The order clearly complies with Public Officers Law § 89 (3), which provides, inter alia, that an entity subject to its provisions, in receipt of a "written request for a record reasonably described, shall make such record available to the person [453]*453requesting it.” Further, petitioner is not aggrieved by the order inasmuch as respondents are willing to provide him with ample opportunity to view a large number of documents over several visits to their office. Moreover, the schedule provided by respondents, and agreed to by petitioner, is not " 'irrational or unreasonable’ ”, and thus should be upheld (Matter of Bernstein v Toia, 43 NY2d 437, 448).

Petitioner’s remaining arguments are both unpreserved and without merit. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Carro, Rosenberger and Rubin, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alfred Toker, J.), entered on January 10, 1992, which denied petitioner’s CPLR article 78 petition seeking to permit petitioner’s associate to view various records pursuant to the Freedom of Information Law, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Contrary to petitioner’s contentions, the IAS court did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner’s application. The order, which incorporated a prior agreement between the parties, did not authorize additional individuals access to the documents which respondents had agreed to supply petitioner. The order clearly complies with Public Officers Law § 89 (3), which provides, inter alia, that an entity subject to its provisions, in receipt of a "written request for a record reasonably described, shall make such record available to the person [453]*453requesting it.” Further, petitioner is not aggrieved by the order inasmuch as respondents are willing to provide him with ample opportunity to view a large number of documents over several visits to their office. Moreover, the schedule provided by respondents, and agreed to by petitioner, is not " 'irrational or unreasonable’ ”, and thus should be upheld (Matter of Bernstein v Toia, 43 NY2d 437, 448).

Petitioner’s remaining arguments are both unpreserved and without merit. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Carro, Rosenberger and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

184 A.D.2d 452, 587 N.Y.S.2d 149, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8608, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alexanian-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack