Matter of Patriots Found. v New York City Comptrollers Off. 2026 NY Slip Op 31025(U) March 18, 2026 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 152146/2025 Judge: Phaedra F. Perry-Bond Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication.
file:///LRB-ALB-FS1/Vol1/ecourts/Process/covers/NYSUP.1521462025.NEW_YORK.001.LBLX000_TO.html[03/25/2026 3:45:46 PM] FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/18/2026 04:25 PM INDEX NO. 152146/2025 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 67 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/18/2026
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY PRESENT: HON. PHAEDRA F. PERRY-BOND PART 35 Justice -------------------X INDEX NO. 152146/2025 IN THE MATTER OF THE PATRIOTS FOUNDATION MOTION DATE 04/09/2025 Petitioner, MOTION SEQ. NO. 002 -v- NEW YORK CITY COMPTROLLERS OFFICE, DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION Respondent.
-------------------X The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 002) 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56, 57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64, 65 were read on this motion to/for ARTICLE 78 (BODY OR OFFICER)
Upon the foregoing documents, the Petition is granted in part and denied in part. On
February 13, 2024, petitioner submitted a Freedom of Information Law ("FOIL") request to
Respondent requesting "all records from ... .January 1, 2020 to today, concerning" CNN, Time
Warner, Warner Bros Discovery, News Corp, MSNBC, Turner Broadcasting System, Fox, and
Fox News. Given the breadth of this request, Petitioner narrowed the request several times by
seeking e-mails from 18 specific custodians across 8 identified terms. On April 9, 2024, Petitioner
again narrowed its request to seek e-mails from 11 custodians. The request was narrowed against
on May 16, 2024 and Respondent stated a response would be provided by July 26, 2024. The
deadline for Respondent to produce any responsive documents was unilaterally extended to August
30, 2024, which was then extended again to December 13, 2024.
On September 6, 2024, Petitioner filed an appeal of the continuous unilateral extension of
the deadline to respond to the request, but the appeal was denied. On December 13, 2024,
Respondent produced documents, but Petitioner argues that the production was incomplete
152146/2025 IN THE MATTER OF THE PATRIOTS FOUNDATION vs. NEW YORK CITY Page 1 of 5 COMPTROLLERS OFFICE Motion No. 002
[* 1] 1 of 5 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/18/2026 04:25 PM INDEX NO. 152146/2025 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 67 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/18/2026
because it contained blanket and overbroad redactions. Petitioner appealed this production on
December 20, 2024. On January 14, 2025, Respondent granted the appeal in part and provided
previously redacted documents, but appeal was denied as to other documents, which remained
heavily redacted. Petitioner alleges it "believes that the Comptroller has still improperly redacted
documents and failed to identify all responsive documents." Petitioner filed this action on
February 18, 2025 1 and asks this Court to compel Respondent to produce responsive records within
twenty days and to award Petitioner's legal fees.
In opposition, Respondent claims it produced over 20,000 pages of responsive documents
and the particularized justifications for the redactions on its response are clearly displayed in the
response. 2 Respondent also argues that in its appeal Petitioner never claimed that Respondent
failed to produce all responsive documents but only appealed the issue of redactions. Finally,
Respondent argues fees are not warranted here as Respondent produced over 20,000 pages of
records prior to this Petition being filed.
As a preliminary matter, the administrative appeal filed by Respondent never claimed there
were documents missing but only challenged the propriety of the redactions (see NYSCEF Doc.
55). Because judicial review in an article 78 proceeding is limited to the "facts and record adduced
before the agency" Petitioner's argument that there are more responsive documents which have
been withheld is not properly before the Court (see Slesinger v Dept. ofHousing Preservation and
Development of City o/New York, 39 AD3d 246,246 [1st Dept 2007] quoting Matter of Yarbough
v Franco, 95 NY2d 342,347 [2000]). Because the issue of missing documents was never appealed
or challenged in the administrative record before Respondent, the Court cannot consider that issue
1 The Petition was subsequently amended on April 9, 2025. 2 The documents are just redacted and a section of the Public Officers Law is slapped on the redacted page -there is
no other explanation as to why the page was redacted or the substance of the redacted communication. 152146/2025 IN THE MATTER OF THE PATRIOTS FOUNDATION vs. NEW YORK CITY Page 2of5 COMPTROLLERS OFFICE Motion No. 002
[* 2] 2 of 5 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/18/2026 04:25 PM INDEX NO. 152146/2025 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 67 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/18/2026
now (see Molloy v New York City Police Dept., 50 AD3d 98, 99-100 [1st Dept 2008] [error for
trial court to consider evidence and arguments outside of the administrative record]). Therefore, to
the extent the Petition asks this Court to direct the production of documents which were allegedly
withheld is denied.
However, the blanket exemptions applied to redactions spanning many pages, without a
particularized "privilege log" detailing what the substance of the privileged communication and
the particularized application of a privilege, constitutes a violation of FOIL. As held by the Court
of Appeals, "exemptions are to be narrowly construed to provide maximum access, and the agency
seeking to prevent disclosure carries the burden of demonstrating that the requested material falls
squarely within a FOIL exemption by articulating a particularized and specific justification for
denying access" (see Capital Newspapers Div. of Hearst Corp. v Burns, 67 NY2d 562, 566
[1986]). The burden rests on the agency to demonstrate that the requested material qualifies for an
exemption (see Gould v New York City Police Dept., 89 NY2d 267, 275 [1996]). "[B]lanket
exemptions for particular types of documents are inimical to FOIL's policy of open government"
(Jewish Press, Inc. v New York City Department of Investigation, 193 AD3d 461 [1st Dept 2021]
quoting Gould, supra).
The attorney affirmation submitted in opposition to the Petition fails to justify the blanket
exemptions and heavy-handed redactions for it fails to set forth any particularized basis for those
redactions. The conclusory and imprecise rebuttal evidence fails to meet Respondent's burden
under FOIL (see Legal Aid Society v Records Access Officer, 238 AD3d 17, 25 [1st Dept 2025]).
Because Respondent has failed to satisfy its burden, the Court is constrained to grant the
Petition, albeit on certain conditions (Matter of West Harlem Bus. Group v Empire State Dev.
Corp., 13 ny3d 882, 885 [2009]). The Court is mindful of the breadth of documents produced
152146/2025 IN THE MATTER OF THE PATRIOTS FOUNDATION vs. NEW YORK CITY Page 3 of 5 COMPTROLLERS OFFICE Motion No. 002
[* 3] 3 of 5 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/18/2026 04:25 PM INDEX NO. 152146/2025 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 67 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/18/2026
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Matter of Patriots Found. v New York City Comptrollers Off. 2026 NY Slip Op 31025(U) March 18, 2026 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 152146/2025 Judge: Phaedra F. Perry-Bond Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication.
file:///LRB-ALB-FS1/Vol1/ecourts/Process/covers/NYSUP.1521462025.NEW_YORK.001.LBLX000_TO.html[03/25/2026 3:45:46 PM] FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/18/2026 04:25 PM INDEX NO. 152146/2025 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 67 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/18/2026
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY PRESENT: HON. PHAEDRA F. PERRY-BOND PART 35 Justice -------------------X INDEX NO. 152146/2025 IN THE MATTER OF THE PATRIOTS FOUNDATION MOTION DATE 04/09/2025 Petitioner, MOTION SEQ. NO. 002 -v- NEW YORK CITY COMPTROLLERS OFFICE, DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION Respondent.
-------------------X The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 002) 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56, 57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64, 65 were read on this motion to/for ARTICLE 78 (BODY OR OFFICER)
Upon the foregoing documents, the Petition is granted in part and denied in part. On
February 13, 2024, petitioner submitted a Freedom of Information Law ("FOIL") request to
Respondent requesting "all records from ... .January 1, 2020 to today, concerning" CNN, Time
Warner, Warner Bros Discovery, News Corp, MSNBC, Turner Broadcasting System, Fox, and
Fox News. Given the breadth of this request, Petitioner narrowed the request several times by
seeking e-mails from 18 specific custodians across 8 identified terms. On April 9, 2024, Petitioner
again narrowed its request to seek e-mails from 11 custodians. The request was narrowed against
on May 16, 2024 and Respondent stated a response would be provided by July 26, 2024. The
deadline for Respondent to produce any responsive documents was unilaterally extended to August
30, 2024, which was then extended again to December 13, 2024.
On September 6, 2024, Petitioner filed an appeal of the continuous unilateral extension of
the deadline to respond to the request, but the appeal was denied. On December 13, 2024,
Respondent produced documents, but Petitioner argues that the production was incomplete
152146/2025 IN THE MATTER OF THE PATRIOTS FOUNDATION vs. NEW YORK CITY Page 1 of 5 COMPTROLLERS OFFICE Motion No. 002
[* 1] 1 of 5 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/18/2026 04:25 PM INDEX NO. 152146/2025 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 67 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/18/2026
because it contained blanket and overbroad redactions. Petitioner appealed this production on
December 20, 2024. On January 14, 2025, Respondent granted the appeal in part and provided
previously redacted documents, but appeal was denied as to other documents, which remained
heavily redacted. Petitioner alleges it "believes that the Comptroller has still improperly redacted
documents and failed to identify all responsive documents." Petitioner filed this action on
February 18, 2025 1 and asks this Court to compel Respondent to produce responsive records within
twenty days and to award Petitioner's legal fees.
In opposition, Respondent claims it produced over 20,000 pages of responsive documents
and the particularized justifications for the redactions on its response are clearly displayed in the
response. 2 Respondent also argues that in its appeal Petitioner never claimed that Respondent
failed to produce all responsive documents but only appealed the issue of redactions. Finally,
Respondent argues fees are not warranted here as Respondent produced over 20,000 pages of
records prior to this Petition being filed.
As a preliminary matter, the administrative appeal filed by Respondent never claimed there
were documents missing but only challenged the propriety of the redactions (see NYSCEF Doc.
55). Because judicial review in an article 78 proceeding is limited to the "facts and record adduced
before the agency" Petitioner's argument that there are more responsive documents which have
been withheld is not properly before the Court (see Slesinger v Dept. ofHousing Preservation and
Development of City o/New York, 39 AD3d 246,246 [1st Dept 2007] quoting Matter of Yarbough
v Franco, 95 NY2d 342,347 [2000]). Because the issue of missing documents was never appealed
or challenged in the administrative record before Respondent, the Court cannot consider that issue
1 The Petition was subsequently amended on April 9, 2025. 2 The documents are just redacted and a section of the Public Officers Law is slapped on the redacted page -there is
no other explanation as to why the page was redacted or the substance of the redacted communication. 152146/2025 IN THE MATTER OF THE PATRIOTS FOUNDATION vs. NEW YORK CITY Page 2of5 COMPTROLLERS OFFICE Motion No. 002
[* 2] 2 of 5 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/18/2026 04:25 PM INDEX NO. 152146/2025 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 67 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/18/2026
now (see Molloy v New York City Police Dept., 50 AD3d 98, 99-100 [1st Dept 2008] [error for
trial court to consider evidence and arguments outside of the administrative record]). Therefore, to
the extent the Petition asks this Court to direct the production of documents which were allegedly
withheld is denied.
However, the blanket exemptions applied to redactions spanning many pages, without a
particularized "privilege log" detailing what the substance of the privileged communication and
the particularized application of a privilege, constitutes a violation of FOIL. As held by the Court
of Appeals, "exemptions are to be narrowly construed to provide maximum access, and the agency
seeking to prevent disclosure carries the burden of demonstrating that the requested material falls
squarely within a FOIL exemption by articulating a particularized and specific justification for
denying access" (see Capital Newspapers Div. of Hearst Corp. v Burns, 67 NY2d 562, 566
[1986]). The burden rests on the agency to demonstrate that the requested material qualifies for an
exemption (see Gould v New York City Police Dept., 89 NY2d 267, 275 [1996]). "[B]lanket
exemptions for particular types of documents are inimical to FOIL's policy of open government"
(Jewish Press, Inc. v New York City Department of Investigation, 193 AD3d 461 [1st Dept 2021]
quoting Gould, supra).
The attorney affirmation submitted in opposition to the Petition fails to justify the blanket
exemptions and heavy-handed redactions for it fails to set forth any particularized basis for those
redactions. The conclusory and imprecise rebuttal evidence fails to meet Respondent's burden
under FOIL (see Legal Aid Society v Records Access Officer, 238 AD3d 17, 25 [1st Dept 2025]).
Because Respondent has failed to satisfy its burden, the Court is constrained to grant the
Petition, albeit on certain conditions (Matter of West Harlem Bus. Group v Empire State Dev.
Corp., 13 ny3d 882, 885 [2009]). The Court is mindful of the breadth of documents produced
152146/2025 IN THE MATTER OF THE PATRIOTS FOUNDATION vs. NEW YORK CITY Page 3 of 5 COMPTROLLERS OFFICE Motion No. 002
[* 3] 3 of 5 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/18/2026 04:25 PM INDEX NO. 152146/2025 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 67 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/18/2026
which are responsive to the request and Respondent's strained resources given the volume of FOIL
requests it receives each month. However, given the current record, and given Respondent's failure
to apply FOIL exemptions in a sufficiently particular matter, it is impracticable for the Court at
this juncture to engage in an in-camera review of over 20,000 documents (see New York Civil
Liberties union v New York State Office of Court Administration, --- N.E.3d ----, 2025 N.Y. Slip
Op. 05784 at *4 [2025] [after more particularized assertion of certain FOIL exemptions or
privileges, Court should assess whether such documents fall within the asserted exemption,
including by in camera review as necessary ]O
Further proceedings must take place to narrow the issues and so that more particularized
assertions of FOIL exemptions may be asserted. Therefore, the Court grants the Petition to the
extent that within ninety (90) days from this Decision and Order, Respondent shall create a
"privilege log" (i.e., a more particularized justification for redactions made to corresponding bates
stamped documents, while identifying the substance of the documents that are redacted) for
Petitioner's review and consideration. After the creation and disclosure of the privilege log,
Petitioner shall, if warranted, file an administrative appeal with Respondent regarding any
determinations it believes to be in violation of FOIL. If Petitioner disagrees with the result of that
administrative appeal, it shall amend the Petition in this matter, wherein the Court shall conduct
an in camera review of the challenged exemptions and award further relief as necessary.
Because Petitioner has succeeded on this Petition, as this Court agrees that the exemptions
applied were done without the requisite particularity, Petitioner is entitled to an award of attorneys'
fees (see Madeiros v New York State Educ. Dept., 30 NY3d 67, 79 [2017] [disclosure compelled
by Supreme Court's order provided sufficient basis to award fees in Article 78 arising from denial
of FOIL request]). Therefore, within thirty days Petitioner shall submit a fee application. If
152146/2025 IN THE MATTER OF THE PATRIOTS FOUNDATION vs. NEW YORK CITY Page 4 of 5 COMPTROLLERS OFFICE Motion No. 002
[* 4] 4 of 5 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/18/2026 04:25 PM INDEX NO. 152146/2025 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 67 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/18/2026
Petitioner is required to come back to the Court and successfully obtains a further order compelling
disclosure, Petitioner may be entitled to a further award of fees.
Accordingly, it is hereby,
ORDERED that the Petition is granted to the extent that within ninety days of entry,
Respondent shall produce to Petitioner a "privilege log" asserting with greater particularity the
FOIL exemption justifying redactions to corresponding bates stamped documents, and identifying
the substance of the document that is the subject of the redaction; and it is further
ORDERED that after receipt of said privilege log, Respondent may, if necessary,
administratively appeal certain exemptions set forth in the privilege log; and it is further
ORDERED that if Petitioner is aggrieved by any decision arising from the aforementioned
administrative appeal, the Petitioner may amend the Petition in this proceeding and seek further
disclosure after an in camera review of the redacted documents, if necessary; and it is further
ORDERED that within thirty days of entry, counsel for Petitioner shall submit a fee
application so an award of attorneys' fees can be issued; and it is further
ORDERED that if the Petitioner succeeds on any further application for disclosure, a
supplemental award of fees may be issued; and it is further
ORDERED that within ten days of entry, counsel for Petitioner shall serve a copy of this
Decision and Order, with notice of entry, on all parties via NYSCEF.
This constitutes the Decision and Order of the rt.
DATE CHECK ONE: CASE DISPOSED NON-FINAL DISPOSITION
GRANTED □ DENIED GRANTED IN PART □ OTHER APPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT □ REFERENCE
152146/2025 IN THE MATTER OF THE PATRIOTS FOUNDATION vs. NEW YORK CITY Page 5 of 5 COMPTROLLERS OFFICE Motion No. 002
[* 5] 5 of 5