Matter of Xao He Lu v. New York City Police Dept.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Xao He Lu v. New York City Police Dept.

2016 NY Slip Op 6976, 143 A.D.3d 616, 39 N.Y.S.3d 761

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 25, 2016·No. 2035 101201/14·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Alexander W. Hunter, Jr., J.), entered June 23, 2015, denying the petition seeking to compel respondent to disclose records of interviews of one of the two victims of a crime pursuant to the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL), and dismissing the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

*617 Respondent met its burden to justify withholding the documents pursuant to a state statute (Public Officers Law § 87 [2] [a]), by affirming that both of the responsive documents located through a diligent search refer to the victim of a sex offense by name, thereby demonstrating that disclosure of the records would be prohibited by Civil Rights Law § 50-b (1) (see Matter of Fappiano v New York City Police Dept., 95 NY2d 738, 746 [2001]). Respondent properly withheld these records in their entirety rather than disclosing redacted copies (see Matter of Karlin v McMahon, 96 NY2d 842, 843 [2001]). It is of no moment that petitioner’s FOIL request focuses only on the male victim of the crimes committed against the two victims, and that the sex offense was committed only against the female victim.

Concur — Acosta, J.P., Renwick, Saxe, Feinman and Kahn, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Alexander W. Hunter, Jr., J.), entered June 23, 2015, denying the petition seeking to compel respondent to disclose records of interviews of one of the two victims of a crime pursuant to the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL), and dismissing the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

*617 Respondent met its burden to justify withholding the documents pursuant to a state statute (Public Officers Law § 87 [2] [a]), by affirming that both of the responsive documents located through a diligent search refer to the victim of a sex offense by name, thereby demonstrating that disclosure of the records would be prohibited by Civil Rights Law § 50-b (1) (see Matter of Fappiano v New York City Police Dept., 95 NY2d 738, 746 [2001]). Respondent properly withheld these records in their entirety rather than disclosing redacted copies (see Matter of Karlin v McMahon, 96 NY2d 842, 843 [2001]). It is of no moment that petitioner’s FOIL request focuses only on the male victim of the crimes committed against the two victims, and that the sex offense was committed only against the female victim.

Concur — Acosta, J.P., Renwick, Saxe, Feinman and Kahn, JJ.

Matter of Xao He Lu v. New York City Police Dept., 2016 NY Slip Op 6976, 143 A.D.3d 616, 39 N.Y.S.3d 761 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

2016 NY Slip Op 6976 (Matter of Xao He Lu v. New York City Police Dept.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related