Brightley v. Lai

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Brightley v. Lai

266 A.D.2d 131, 698 N.Y.S.2d 487, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12348

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

DecidedNovember 30, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 266 A.D.2d 131 (Brightley v. Lai) 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

Brightley v. Lai, 266 A.D.2d 131, 698 N.Y.S.2d 487, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12348 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Orders, Supreme Court, New York County (Stuart Cohen, J., and Walter Tolub, J., respectively), entered November 5, 1997 and [132]*132April 29, 1998, inter alia, denying petitioner’s application made pursuant to CPLR article 78 for an order directing respondents to furnish documents sought under the Freedom of Information Law, and denying petitioner’s motion for renewal, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner failed to meet his burden of establishing by admissible evidence that the documents requested had not been provided to the attorney who had represented him at his criminal trial or that they were no longer available to petitioner (see, Matter of Franklin v Keller, 254 AD2d 83; Matter of Scarola v Morgenthau, 246 AD2d 417; Matter of Swinton v Record Access Officers for City of N. Y. Police Dept., 198 AD2d 165). The motion to renew was properly denied (see, Foley v Roche, 68 AD2d 558).

We have considered and rejected petitioner’s remaining contentions. Concur — Ellerin, P. J., Williams, Lerner, Rubin and Saxe, JJ.

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

—Orders, Supreme Court, New York County (Stuart Cohen, J., and Walter Tolub, J., respectively), entered November 5, 1997 and [132]*132April 29, 1998, inter alia, denying petitioner’s application made pursuant to CPLR article 78 for an order directing respondents to furnish documents sought under the Freedom of Information Law, and denying petitioner’s motion for renewal, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner failed to meet his burden of establishing by admissible evidence that the documents requested had not been provided to the attorney who had represented him at his criminal trial or that they were no longer available to petitioner (see, Matter of Franklin v Keller, 254 AD2d 83; Matter of Scarola v Morgenthau, 246 AD2d 417; Matter of Swinton v Record Access Officers for City of N. Y. Police Dept., 198 AD2d 165). The motion to renew was properly denied (see, Foley v Roche, 68 AD2d 558).

We have considered and rejected petitioner’s remaining contentions. Concur — Ellerin, P. J., Williams, Lerner, Rubin and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

266 A.D.2d 131, 698 N.Y.S.2d 487, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12348, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brightley-v-lai-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack