Mitchell v. Borakove

225 A.D.2d 435, 639 N.Y.2d 791, 639 N.Y.S.2d 791, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2789
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 21, 1996
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 225 A.D.2d 435 (Mitchell v. Borakove) 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
Mitchell v. Borakove, 225 A.D.2d 435, 639 N.Y.2d 791, 639 N.Y.S.2d 791, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2789 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Opinions

Petitioner seeks disclosure of certain documents, worksheets and audiotape allegedly created in connection with the autopsy of Charles Freeman, Jr., whom petitioner was convicted of murdering in 1975.

Under the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL), records which must otherwise be made available to applicants need not be if they are specifically exempted from disclosure by State or Federal statute (Public Officers Law § 87 [2] [a]). Here such exemption exists with regard to the subject records under New York City Charter § 557 (g), which provides that the Chief Medical Examiner "shall promptly deliver to the appropriate district attorney copies of all records relating to every death as to which there is, in the judgment of the medical examiner in charge, any indication of criminality. Such records shall not be open to public inspection.” (See, Matter of Assakaf v Arden, 210 AD2d 325.)

While the IAS Court, in reversing itself and ultimately granting the petition, relied upon the Court of Appeals decision in Matter of Diaz v Lukash (82 NY2d 211), that decision is not here apposite since the petitioner in that case was proceeding under section 677 (3) (b) of the County Law, which, under County Law § 2, has no application to New York City, whose counties are wholly contained within a city (see, Matter of Scott v Chief Med. Examiner of City of N. Y., 179 AD2d 443). Indeed, the exemption of the City from County Law § 677 manifests the Legislature’s intention to defer to the City Charter’s regulation of such records within its jurisdictional bounds. Concur— Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Ross and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

Related

Matter of Whitfield v. Foil Appeals Officer, Dept. of Corr. & Community Supervision
2023 NY Slip Op 06022 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2023)
Matter of Harris v. Bronx County Dist. Attorney
181 N.Y.S.3d 462 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2023)
Johnson v. Kelly
116 A.D.3d 605 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Tims v. City of New York
112 A.D.3d 457 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Green v. Giuliani
187 Misc. 2d 138 (New York Supreme Court, 2000)
Lovacco v. Hirsch
250 A.D.2d 416 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
Scott v. Borakove
248 A.D.2d 175 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
Applegate v. Hirsch
245 A.D.2d 213 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
Huston v. Turkel
236 A.D.2d 283 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
Katz v. Scott
236 A.D.2d 259 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
225 A.D.2d 435, 639 N.Y.2d 791, 639 N.Y.S.2d 791, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2789, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mitchell-v-borakove-nyappdiv-1996.