Curro v. Capasso

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Curro v. Capasso

209 A.D.2d 346, 619 N.Y.S.2d 549

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

DecidedNovember 22, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 209 A.D.2d 346 (Curro v. Capasso) 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

Curro v. Capasso, 209 A.D.2d 346, 619 N.Y.S.2d 549 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Helen L. Freedman, J.), entered November 24, 1992, which denied petitioner’s application pursuant to CPLR article 78 to compel respondents to provide certain documents pursuant to the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) on the merits and granted respondents’ motion to vacate their default, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Except for those records required to be maintained by Public Officers Law §87 (3) and §88 (3), FOIL does not "require any entity to prepare any record not possessed or maintained by such entity” (Public Officers Law §89 [3]). Here, the affidavit of the records access officer established that the documents requested by petitioner could not be located after diligent and thorough search and thus were not in respondents’ possession. Accordingly, the IAS Court properly denied the petition (Matter of Ahlers v Dillon, 143 AD2d 225).

We have considered petitioner’s other arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin, Kupferman and Williams, JJ.

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

—Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Helen L. Freedman, J.), entered November 24, 1992, which denied petitioner’s application pursuant to CPLR article 78 to compel respondents to provide certain documents pursuant to the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) on the merits and granted respondents’ motion to vacate their default, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Except for those records required to be maintained by Public Officers Law §87 (3) and §88 (3), FOIL does not "require any entity to prepare any record not possessed or maintained by such entity” (Public Officers Law §89 [3]). Here, the affidavit of the records access officer established that the documents requested by petitioner could not be located after diligent and thorough search and thus were not in respondents’ possession. Accordingly, the IAS Court properly denied the petition (Matter of Ahlers v Dillon, 143 AD2d 225).

We have considered petitioner’s other arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin, Kupferman and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

209 A.D.2d 346, 619 N.Y.S.2d 549, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/curro-v-capasso-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack