Moore v. Catus

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Moore v. Catus

254 A.D.2d 360, 678 N.Y.S.2d 728, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10784

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

DecidedOctober 13, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 254 A.D.2d 360 (Moore v. Catus) 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

Moore v. Catus, 254 A.D.2d 360, 678 N.Y.S.2d 728, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10784 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to compel the appellants to provide certain documents relating to the revenues of the Greenport Water Department, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Gerard, J.), dated March 9, 1998, which, inter alia, granted the petition and awarded the petitioner counsel fees and costs. The notice of appeal from an order of the same court dated October 17, 1997, is deemed to be a premature notice of appeal from the judgment (see, CPLR 5520 [c]).

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the appellants’ contention, the petitioner was a proper party to commence this proceeding. Since the Freedom of Information Law (Public Officers Law art 6) (hereinafter FOIL) “has made full disclosure by public agencies a public right, the status or need of the person seeking access is generally of no consequence in construing FOIL and its exemptions” (Matter of Capital Newspapers Div. v Burns, 67 NY2d 562, 566-567).

The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in awarding the petitioner counsel fees and costs (see, Public Officers Law § 89 [4] [c]).

The appellants’ remaining contention is without merit. [361]*361O’Brien, J. P., Ritter, Thompson, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to compel the appellants to provide certain documents relating to the revenues of the Greenport Water Department, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Gerard, J.), dated March 9, 1998, which, inter alia, granted the petition and awarded the petitioner counsel fees and costs. The notice of appeal from an order of the same court dated October 17, 1997, is deemed to be a premature notice of appeal from the judgment (see, CPLR 5520 [c]).

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the appellants’ contention, the petitioner was a proper party to commence this proceeding. Since the Freedom of Information Law (Public Officers Law art 6) (hereinafter FOIL) “has made full disclosure by public agencies a public right, the status or need of the person seeking access is generally of no consequence in construing FOIL and its exemptions” (Matter of Capital Newspapers Div. v Burns, 67 NY2d 562, 566-567).

The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in awarding the petitioner counsel fees and costs (see, Public Officers Law § 89 [4] [c]).

The appellants’ remaining contention is without merit. [361]*361O’Brien, J. P., Ritter, Thompson, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

254 A.D.2d 360, 678 N.Y.S.2d 728, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10784, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moore-v-catus-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack