Kashti v. New York City Police Department

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kashti v. New York City Police Department

227 A.D.2d 313, 643 N.Y.S.2d 337, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6022

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

DecidedMay 28, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 227 A.D.2d 313 (Kashti v. New York City Police Department) 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

Kashti v. New York City Police Department, 227 A.D.2d 313, 643 N.Y.S.2d 337, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6022 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jane Solomon, J.), entered September 27, 1995, which granted plaintiffs’ motion to compel defendants’ compliance with plaintiffs’ Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) request, and denied defendants’ cross motion to dismiss the action as time-barred with leave to renew upon compliance with the FOIL request, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts, to the extent of remanding the matter for an in camera examination of the material sought to determine whether any or all of it is exempt from disclosure, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

While we agree with the IAS Court that defendants failed to meet their burden of showing that specific materials sought fall squarely within a specific FOIL exemption, an in camera examination of the materials should be conducted given the possibility that some of the material may do so (see, Brown v Town of Amherst, 195 AD2d 979). Defendants’ cross motion was properly denied without prejudice since information in the materials sought may undermine their Statute of Limitations defense. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jane Solomon, J.), entered September 27, 1995, which granted plaintiffs’ motion to compel defendants’ compliance with plaintiffs’ Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) request, and denied defendants’ cross motion to dismiss the action as time-barred with leave to renew upon compliance with the FOIL request, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts, to the extent of remanding the matter for an in camera examination of the material sought to determine whether any or all of it is exempt from disclosure, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

While we agree with the IAS Court that defendants failed to meet their burden of showing that specific materials sought fall squarely within a specific FOIL exemption, an in camera examination of the materials should be conducted given the possibility that some of the material may do so (see, Brown v Town of Amherst, 195 AD2d 979). Defendants’ cross motion was properly denied without prejudice since information in the materials sought may undermine their Statute of Limitations defense. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

227 A.D.2d 313, 643 N.Y.S.2d 337, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6022, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kashti-v-new-york-city-police-department-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack