McKethan v. New York Branch of the New York/New Jersey Port Authority Police Department

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

McKethan v. New York Branch of the New York/New Jersey Port Authority Police Department

277 A.D.2d 15, 716 N.Y.S.2d 564, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11012

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

DecidedNovember 2, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 277 A.D.2d 15 (McKethan v. New York Branch of the New York/New Jersey Port Authority 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

McKethan v. New York Branch of the New York/New Jersey Port Authority Police Department, 277 A.D.2d 15, 716 N.Y.S.2d 564, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11012 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paula Omansky, J.), entered on or about July 22, 1999, which determined that respondent had “adequately respond [ed]” to the court’s prior order, dated January 13, 1999, directing respondent to provide further information in this Freedom of Information Law proceeding, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court correctly held that respondents adequately established the nonexistence of additional records requested by [16]*16petitioner. Once respondent’s records access officer certified that respondent had provided petitioner with all responsive documents in its possession, petitioner “was required to articulate a demonstrable factual basis to support his contention that the [further] requested documents existed and were within the [Authority’s] control” (Matter of Gould v New York City Police Dept., 89 NY2d 267, 279). Petitioner has not met that burden. Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Tom, Lerner, Buckley and Friedman, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paula Omansky, J.), entered on or about July 22, 1999, which determined that respondent had “adequately respond [ed]” to the court’s prior order, dated January 13, 1999, directing respondent to provide further information in this Freedom of Information Law proceeding, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court correctly held that respondents adequately established the nonexistence of additional records requested by [16]*16petitioner. Once respondent’s records access officer certified that respondent had provided petitioner with all responsive documents in its possession, petitioner “was required to articulate a demonstrable factual basis to support his contention that the [further] requested documents existed and were within the [Authority’s] control” (Matter of Gould v New York City Police Dept., 89 NY2d 267, 279). Petitioner has not met that burden. Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Tom, Lerner, Buckley and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

277 A.D.2d 15, 716 N.Y.S.2d 564, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11012, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mckethan-v-new-york-branch-of-the-new-yorknew-jersey-port-authority-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack