O'Donnell v. Bloomberg

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

O'Donnell v. Bloomberg

33 A.D.3d 367, 822 N.Y.S.2d 253

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

DecidedOctober 5, 2006

StatusPublished

This text of 33 A.D.3d 367 (O'Donnell v. Bloomberg) 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

O'Donnell v. Bloomberg, 33 A.D.3d 367, 822 N.Y.S.2d 253 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Supreme Court, New Judgment, York County (Carol Edmead, J.), entered February 10, 2006, dismissing a Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) proceeding, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner offers no persuasive reason to reject respondents’ statement that, with one exception, no records responsive to petitioner’s FOIL requests could be found after a diligent search (Public Officers Law § 89 [3]; Matter of Baum v Tessler, 24 AD3d 214, 215 [2005]). The one record that respondents did find was, after an in camera inspection, correctly held to be exempt from disclosure as interagency material (Public Officers Law § 87 [2] [g]; see Matter of Fink v Lefkowitz, 47 NY2d 567, 571 [1979]). Concur—Tom, J.E, Saxe, Friedman, Catterson and McGuire, JJ.

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

Supreme Court, New Judgment, York County (Carol Edmead, J.), entered February 10, 2006, dismissing a Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) proceeding, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner offers no persuasive reason to reject respondents’ statement that, with one exception, no records responsive to petitioner’s FOIL requests could be found after a diligent search (Public Officers Law § 89 [3]; Matter of Baum v Tessler, 24 AD3d 214, 215 [2005]). The one record that respondents did find was, after an in camera inspection, correctly held to be exempt from disclosure as interagency material (Public Officers Law § 87 [2] [g]; see Matter of Fink v Lefkowitz, 47 NY2d 567, 571 [1979]). Concur—Tom, J.E, Saxe, Friedman, Catterson and McGuire, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

33 A.D.3d 367, 822 N.Y.S.2d 253, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/odonnell-v-bloomberg-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack