Barrett v. Morgenthau

New York Court of Appeals

Barrett v. Morgenthau

548 N.E.2d 1300, 74 N.Y.2d 907, 549 N.Y.S.2d 649, 1989 N.Y. LEXIS 3180

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 16, 1989

StatusPublished

Cited by14 cases

This text of 548 N.E.2d 1300 (Barrett v. Morgenthau) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Barrett v. Morgenthau, 548 N.E.2d 1300, 74 N.Y.2d 907, 549 N.Y.S.2d 649, 1989 N.Y. LEXIS 3180 (N.Y. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

[909]*909OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner commenced this article 78 proceeding to compel production of certain documents after his Freedom of Information Law request, initially directed to the District Attorney, was denied in a letter signed by the District Attorney’s records access officer. Inasmuch as the District Attorney failed to advise petitioner of the availability of an administrative appeal in the office (see, 21 NYCRR 1401.7 [b]) and failed to demonstrate in this proceeding that procedures for such an appeal had, in fact, even been established (see, Public Officers Law § 87 [1] [b]), he cannot be heard to complain that petitioner failed to exhaust his administrative remedies.

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone, Hancock, Jr., and Bellacosa concur.

Order affirmed, without costs, in a memorandum.

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

[909]*909OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner commenced this article 78 proceeding to compel production of certain documents after his Freedom of Information Law request, initially directed to the District Attorney, was denied in a letter signed by the District Attorney’s records access officer. Inasmuch as the District Attorney failed to advise petitioner of the availability of an administrative appeal in the office (see, 21 NYCRR 1401.7 [b]) and failed to demonstrate in this proceeding that procedures for such an appeal had, in fact, even been established (see, Public Officers Law § 87 [1] [b]), he cannot be heard to complain that petitioner failed to exhaust his administrative remedies.

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone, Hancock, Jr., and Bellacosa concur.

Order affirmed, without costs, in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

548 N.E.2d 1300, 74 N.Y.2d 907, 549 N.Y.S.2d 649, 1989 N.Y. LEXIS 3180, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barrett-v-morgenthau-ny-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack