Gerace v. Mandel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gerace v. Mandel

267 A.D.2d 386, 700 N.Y.S.2d 739, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13171

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

DecidedDecember 20, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 267 A.D.2d 386 (Gerace v. Mandel) 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

Gerace v. Mandel, 267 A.D.2d 386, 700 N.Y.S.2d 739, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13171 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to compel the production of certain documents pursuant to the Freedom of Information Law (Public Officers Law art 6), Jodi Mandel, an Assistant District Attorney in the office of the Kings County District Attorney, appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Held, J.), dated January 4, 1999, which granted the petition to the extent of directing the District Attorney’s office to produce redacted criminal histories of certain individuals.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the petition is dismissed.

The petitioner sought disclosure of certain criminal history reports or “rap sheets” which are compiled by the Division of Criminal Justice Services and are exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Law (see, Matter of Woods v Kings County Dist. Attorney’s Off., 234 AD2d 554; Matter of Bennett v Girgenti, 226 AD2d 792). Further, under the facts of this case, the extensive redaction of the “rap sheets” ordered by the Supreme Court would improperly require the respondent to “prepare” records (Public Officers Law § 89 [3]) and would not, in any event, effectively address privacy concerns (see, Public Officers Law § 87 [2] [b]). Sullivan, J. P., Joy, Krausman and Luciano, JJ., concur.

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

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to compel the production of certain documents pursuant to the Freedom of Information Law (Public Officers Law art 6), Jodi Mandel, an Assistant District Attorney in the office of the Kings County District Attorney, appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Held, J.), dated January 4, 1999, which granted the petition to the extent of directing the District Attorney’s office to produce redacted criminal histories of certain individuals.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the petition is dismissed.

The petitioner sought disclosure of certain criminal history reports or “rap sheets” which are compiled by the Division of Criminal Justice Services and are exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Law (see, Matter of Woods v Kings County Dist. Attorney’s Off., 234 AD2d 554; Matter of Bennett v Girgenti, 226 AD2d 792). Further, under the facts of this case, the extensive redaction of the “rap sheets” ordered by the Supreme Court would improperly require the respondent to “prepare” records (Public Officers Law § 89 [3]) and would not, in any event, effectively address privacy concerns (see, Public Officers Law § 87 [2] [b]). Sullivan, J. P., Joy, Krausman and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

267 A.D.2d 386, 700 N.Y.S.2d 739, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13171, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gerace-v-mandel-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack