Lonski v. Kelly

149 A.D.2d 977, 540 N.Y.S.2d 114, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6022
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 14, 1989
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 149 A.D.2d 977 (Lonski v. Kelly) 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
Lonski v. Kelly, 149 A.D.2d 977, 540 N.Y.S.2d 114, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6022 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Petitioner, an inmate at Attica, appeals from a judgment which denied his CPLR article 78 petition challenging respondents’ denial of his request under the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) to obtain a copy of a videotape depicting his transfer to special housing unit. We conclude that the videotape falls within the FOIL exemption for materials which, "if disclosed would [978]*978endanger the life or safety of any person” (Public Officers Law § 87 [2] [f]), and that respondents properly denied petitioner’s request. In our view, respondents have articulated a "particularized and specific justification” for denying access (Matter of Capital Newspapers v Bums, 67 NY2d 562, 566) based upon the threat to institutional security and to the safety of correction officers. The videotape reveals the geographical layout of special housing unit and discloses the identities of inmates and officers who occupy that portion of the prison. The risk of violence toward prison employees, and the threat to the safety of employees and inmates and to the general public in the event of an escape, warrant the conclusion that disclosure would endanger the life or safety of individuals (Public Officers Law § 87 [2] [f]; see, Matter of Nalo v Sullivan, 125 AD2d 311, 312, Iv denied 69 NY2d 612; Matter of Fournier v Fish, 83 AD2d 979).

In view of our disposition, it is unnecessary to consider the parties’ remaining contentions. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Dadd, J.— art 78.) Present—Den-man, J. P., Boomer, Pine, Lawton and Davis, JJ.

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

Related

Dilworth v. Westchester County Department of Correction
93 A.D.3d 722 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
MACK, MARQUEZ v. HOWARD, TIMOTHY
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012
Mack v. Howard
91 A.D.3d 1315 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Buffalo Broadcasting Co. v. New York State Department of Correctional Services
155 A.D.2d 106 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1990)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
149 A.D.2d 977, 540 N.Y.S.2d 114, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6022, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lonski-v-kelly-nyappdiv-1989.