Hanig v. State of New York Department of Motor Vehicles

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hanig v. State of New York Department of Motor Vehicles

168 A.D.2d 884, 564 N.Y.S.2d 805, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15767

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

DecidedDecember 27, 1990

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 168 A.D.2d 884 (Hanig v. State of New York Department of Motor Vehicles) 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

Hanig v. State of New York Department of Motor Vehicles, 168 A.D.2d 884, 564 N.Y.S.2d 805, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15767 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Casey, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Bradley, J.), entered May 3, 1990 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of respondents denying petitioner’s request for certain documents under the Freedom of Information Law.

At issue on this appeal is whether the response given by an applicant for a New York license to the question on the application form which asks, "Do you have, or are you currently receiving treatment for, any disabilities?”, is subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information Law (Public Officers Law art 6). We agree with Supreme Court that respondents acted properly in redacting or masking this portion of the requested application form.

Public Officers Law § 87 (2) (b) permits an agency to deny access to records or portions thereof if disclosure would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. Public Officers Law § 89 (2) (b) (i) provides that "[a]n unwarranted invasion of personal privacy includes, but shall not be limited to * * * disclosure of employment, medical or credit histories”. Notwithstanding petitioner’s argument to the contrary, we have no difficulty in concluding that an applicant’s existing medical condition, particularly the presence or absence of a disability, constitutes a relevant and material part of the applicant’s medical history, and we reject petitioner’s claim that the statute applies only to complete and precise technical appraisals prepared by medically qualified personnel. The relevant inquiry is not, in our view, whether the information was compiled by medically qualified personnel or whether the information in and of itself constitutes a complete and precise technical appraisal of a person’s medical past. Rather, the information constitutes medical history, the disclosure of which would be an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy pursuant to Public Officers Law § 89 (2) (b), if it is the type of information that one would reasonably expect to be included as a relevant and material part of a proper medical history. Since the information at issue here meets this standard, respondents had the discretionary authority to deny access to the information (Public Officers Law § 87 [2] [b]), and we see no abuse of discretion here.

[885]*885Judgment affirmed, with costs. Mahoney, P. J., Kane, Casey, Weiss and Mercure, JJ., concur.

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

Casey, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Bradley, J.), entered May 3, 1990 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of respondents denying petitioner’s request for certain documents under the Freedom of Information Law.

At issue on this appeal is whether the response given by an applicant for a New York license to the question on the application form which asks, "Do you have, or are you currently receiving treatment for, any disabilities?”, is subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information Law (Public Officers Law art 6). We agree with Supreme Court that respondents acted properly in redacting or masking this portion of the requested application form.

Public Officers Law § 87 (2) (b) permits an agency to deny access to records or portions thereof if disclosure would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. Public Officers Law § 89 (2) (b) (i) provides that "[a]n unwarranted invasion of personal privacy includes, but shall not be limited to * * * disclosure of employment, medical or credit histories”. Notwithstanding petitioner’s argument to the contrary, we have no difficulty in concluding that an applicant’s existing medical condition, particularly the presence or absence of a disability, constitutes a relevant and material part of the applicant’s medical history, and we reject petitioner’s claim that the statute applies only to complete and precise technical appraisals prepared by medically qualified personnel. The relevant inquiry is not, in our view, whether the information was compiled by medically qualified personnel or whether the information in and of itself constitutes a complete and precise technical appraisal of a person’s medical past. Rather, the information constitutes medical history, the disclosure of which would be an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy pursuant to Public Officers Law § 89 (2) (b), if it is the type of information that one would reasonably expect to be included as a relevant and material part of a proper medical history. Since the information at issue here meets this standard, respondents had the discretionary authority to deny access to the information (Public Officers Law § 87 [2] [b]), and we see no abuse of discretion here.

[885]*885Judgment affirmed, with costs. Mahoney, P. J., Kane, Casey, Weiss and Mercure, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

168 A.D.2d 884, 564 N.Y.S.2d 805, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15767, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hanig-v-state-of-new-york-department-of-motor-vehicles-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack