Rodriguez v. Johnson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rodriguez v. Johnson

66 A.D.2d 536, 886 N.Y.S.2d 695

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

DecidedOctober 20, 2009

StatusPublished

This text of 66 A.D.2d 536 (Rodriguez v. Johnson) 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

Rodriguez v. Johnson, 66 A.D.2d 536, 886 N.Y.S.2d 695 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (David Stadtmauer, J.), entered January 27, 2006, denying petitioner’s Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) application to compel respondent District Attorney, inter alia, to disclose certain documents pertaining to petitioner’s criminal prosecution, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We affirm for reasons different from those stated by the CPLR article 78 court. We find that respondent met its obligations under FOIL (Public Officers Law § 84 et seq.). Respondent satisfied the requirements of Public Officers Law § 89 (3) by certifying that it had conducted a diligent search for the documents it could not locate (see Matter of Bridgewater v Johnson, 44 AD3d 549 [2007]). It properly deleted identifying characteristics of witnesses from certain documents on the ground that disclosure would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy (see Public Officers Law § 87 [2] [b]). It properly withheld, pursuant to the public interest privilege, the statements of two witnesses who spoke with law enforcement personnel (see Sanchez v City of New York, 201 AD2d 325 [1994]). Respondent was not required to provide either reprints of photographs (Matter of Adams v Hirsch, 182 AD2d 583 [1992]) or duplicative documents (see Matter of Cobb v Lombardi, 261 AD2d 172 [1999]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Buckley, Catterson, Freedman and AbdusSalaam, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (David Stadtmauer, J.), entered January 27, 2006, denying petitioner’s Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) application to compel respondent District Attorney, inter alia, to disclose certain documents pertaining to petitioner’s criminal prosecution, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We affirm for reasons different from those stated by the CPLR article 78 court. We find that respondent met its obligations under FOIL (Public Officers Law § 84 et seq.). Respondent satisfied the requirements of Public Officers Law § 89 (3) by certifying that it had conducted a diligent search for the documents it could not locate (see Matter of Bridgewater v Johnson, 44 AD3d 549 [2007]). It properly deleted identifying characteristics of witnesses from certain documents on the ground that disclosure would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy (see Public Officers Law § 87 [2] [b]). It properly withheld, pursuant to the public interest privilege, the statements of two witnesses who spoke with law enforcement personnel (see Sanchez v City of New York, 201 AD2d 325 [1994]). Respondent was not required to provide either reprints of photographs (Matter of Adams v Hirsch, 182 AD2d 583 [1992]) or duplicative documents (see Matter of Cobb v Lombardi, 261 AD2d 172 [1999]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Buckley, Catterson, Freedman and AbdusSalaam, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

66 A.D.2d 536, 886 N.Y.S.2d 695, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rodriguez-v-johnson-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack