Boddie v. Goord

251 A.D.2d 799, 674 N.Y.S.2d 466, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6766
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 11, 1998
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 251 A.D.2d 799 (Boddie v. Goord) 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
Boddie v. Goord, 251 A.D.2d 799, 674 N.Y.S.2d 466, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6766 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Opinion

—Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Harris, J.), entered June 5, 1997 in Albany County, which partially dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of respondents denying petitioner’s request under the Freedom of Information Law.

Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Law (Public Officers Law art 6) petitioner, a prison inmate, requested that he be provided with a copy of the State Department of Correctional Services Employee Manual. Respondents granted petitioner’s request in part but denied disclosure of certain provisions, stating that the release of such provisions could endanger the safety and security of the correction facility. Following an unsuccessful administrative appeal, petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding. Supreme Court granted the petition with respect to certain subsections of the manual but dismissed the petition with respect to others. Petitioner now appeals.

[800]*800We affirm. Upon our in camera review of those portions of the manual that Supreme Court did not order disclosed, we conclude that such provisions pertain to the supervision and security of inmates and, as such, fall within the exemption governing materials which “if disclosed would endanger the life or safety of any person” (Public Officers Law § 87 [2] [f]; see, Matter of Howard v Malone, 247 AD2d 665). As respondents have made a sufficient showing that disclosure of the relevant subsections would pose the very risk of harm covered by the exemption (see, Matter of Partee v Bartlett, 241 AD2d 605, lv denied 90 NY2d 811), Supreme Court did not err in partially dismissing the petition.

Crew III, J. P., White, Yesawich Jr., Peters and Graffeo, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

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

Related

Matter of Hutchinson v. Annucci
2020 NY Slip Op 07639 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
Williamson v. Fischer
116 A.D.3d 1169 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Whitfield v. Bailey
80 A.D.3d 417 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Bodie v. Morgenthau
342 F. Supp. 2d 193 (S.D. New York, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
251 A.D.2d 799, 674 N.Y.S.2d 466, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6766, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/boddie-v-goord-nyappdiv-1998.