Livingston v. Hynes

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Livingston v. Hynes

72 A.D.3d 968, 898 N.Y.S.2d 521

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

DecidedApril 20, 2010

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 72 A.D.3d 968 (Livingston v. Hynes) 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

Livingston v. Hynes, 72 A.D.3d 968, 898 N.Y.S.2d 521 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of Charles J. Hynes, the Kings County District Attorney, dated March 6, 2008, which denied the petitioner’s request for disclosure pursuant to the Freedom of Information Law (Public Officers Law § 84 et seq.), the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Starkey, J.), dated August 21, 2008, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The respondent satisfied his obligation under the Freedom of Information Law when he certified that after a diligent search, no documents responsive to the petitioner’s request were in his possession (see Public Officers Law § 89 [3]; Matter of Curry v [969]*969Nassau County Sheriff's Dept., 69 AD3d 622 [2010]; Matter of Covington v Sultana, 59 AD3d 163, 164 [2009]; Matter of Robert v LoCicero, 28 AD3d 566, 567 [2006]; Matter of Rodriguez v Dillon, 210 AD2d 416, 417 [1994]). Furthermore, the petitioner’s offer of proof failed to establish that the requested documents, if any, were in the respondent’s possession (see Matter of Curry v Nassau County Sheriff's Dept., 69 AD3d 622 [2010]; Matter of Daum v Tessler, 24 AD3d 214, 215 [2005]; Matter of Calvin K. of Oakknoll v De Francesco, 200 AD2d 619 [1994]; Matter of Ahlers v Dillon, 143 AD2d 225, 226 [1988]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding. Fisher, J.P., Covello, Balkin, Leventhal and Lott, 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 review a determination of Charles J. Hynes, the Kings County District Attorney, dated March 6, 2008, which denied the petitioner’s request for disclosure pursuant to the Freedom of Information Law (Public Officers Law § 84 et seq.), the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Starkey, J.), dated August 21, 2008, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The respondent satisfied his obligation under the Freedom of Information Law when he certified that after a diligent search, no documents responsive to the petitioner’s request were in his possession (see Public Officers Law § 89 [3]; Matter of Curry v [969]*969Nassau County Sheriff's Dept., 69 AD3d 622 [2010]; Matter of Covington v Sultana, 59 AD3d 163, 164 [2009]; Matter of Robert v LoCicero, 28 AD3d 566, 567 [2006]; Matter of Rodriguez v Dillon, 210 AD2d 416, 417 [1994]). Furthermore, the petitioner’s offer of proof failed to establish that the requested documents, if any, were in the respondent’s possession (see Matter of Curry v Nassau County Sheriff's Dept., 69 AD3d 622 [2010]; Matter of Daum v Tessler, 24 AD3d 214, 215 [2005]; Matter of Calvin K. of Oakknoll v De Francesco, 200 AD2d 619 [1994]; Matter of Ahlers v Dillon, 143 AD2d 225, 226 [1988]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding. Fisher, J.P., Covello, Balkin, Leventhal and Lott, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

72 A.D.3d 968, 898 N.Y.S.2d 521, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/livingston-v-hynes-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack