Reape v. State of New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Reape v. State of New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority

185 A.D.2d 275, 586 N.Y.S.2d 23, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8905

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

DecidedJuly 13, 1992

StatusPublished

This text of 185 A.D.2d 275 (Reape v. State of New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority) 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

Reape v. State of New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority, 185 A.D.2d 275, 586 N.Y.S.2d 23, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8905 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

— In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to compel the respondents to grant the petitioner access to records of the New York City Transit Authority, Transit Adjudication Bureau, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Garry, J.), dated September 9, 1990, which dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs to the respondent New York City Transit Authority, Transit Adjudication Bureau.

The petitioner commenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to compel the respondents to disclose, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Law (see, Public Officers Law § 84 et seq.; hereinafter FOIL), records in the possession of the Transit Adjudication Bureau which were compiled in connection with the charges and dispositions involving two separate and unrelated bureau hearings.

[276]*276It is well settled that agency records are presumptively available for public inspection and copying, unless the agency can demonstrate that the requested records fall within one of eight categories of exemptions (Public Officers Law § 87 [2]; see also, Matter of Farbman & Sons v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 62 NY2d 75; Matter of Scott, Sardano & Pomeranz v Records Access Officer of City of Syracuse, 65 NY2d 294). Pursuant to the legislation which established the Transit Adjudication Bureau, the bureau is authorized "[t]o compile and maintain complete and accurate records relating to all charges and dispositions, which records shall be deemed exempt from disclosure under the freedom of information law” (Public Authorities Law § 1209-a [4] [f]). As per Public Officers Law § 87 (2) (a), an “agency may deny access to records * * * that * * * are specifically exempted from disclosure by state * * * statute”.

Accordingly, since the records which the petitioner seeks are specifically exempted by State statute from FOIL disclosure, the respondents have demonstrated that they may properly deny access to these records pursuant to Public Officers Law § 87 (2) (a).

We have examined the petitioner’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J. P., Eiber, Pizzuto and Santucci, 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 respondents to grant the petitioner access to records of the New York City Transit Authority, Transit Adjudication Bureau, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Garry, J.), dated September 9, 1990, which dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs to the respondent New York City Transit Authority, Transit Adjudication Bureau.

The petitioner commenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to compel the respondents to disclose, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Law (see, Public Officers Law § 84 et seq.; hereinafter FOIL), records in the possession of the Transit Adjudication Bureau which were compiled in connection with the charges and dispositions involving two separate and unrelated bureau hearings.

[276]*276It is well settled that agency records are presumptively available for public inspection and copying, unless the agency can demonstrate that the requested records fall within one of eight categories of exemptions (Public Officers Law § 87 [2]; see also, Matter of Farbman & Sons v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 62 NY2d 75; Matter of Scott, Sardano & Pomeranz v Records Access Officer of City of Syracuse, 65 NY2d 294). Pursuant to the legislation which established the Transit Adjudication Bureau, the bureau is authorized "[t]o compile and maintain complete and accurate records relating to all charges and dispositions, which records shall be deemed exempt from disclosure under the freedom of information law” (Public Authorities Law § 1209-a [4] [f]). As per Public Officers Law § 87 (2) (a), an “agency may deny access to records * * * that * * * are specifically exempted from disclosure by state * * * statute”.

Accordingly, since the records which the petitioner seeks are specifically exempted by State statute from FOIL disclosure, the respondents have demonstrated that they may properly deny access to these records pursuant to Public Officers Law § 87 (2) (a).

We have examined the petitioner’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J. P., Eiber, Pizzuto and Santucci, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

185 A.D.2d 275, 586 N.Y.S.2d 23, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8905, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reape-v-state-of-new-york-metropolitan-transportation-authority-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack