Taylor v. New York City Police Department FOIL Unit

25 A.D.3d 347, 806 N.Y.S.2d 586
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 5, 2006
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 25 A.D.3d 347 (Taylor v. New York City Police Department FOIL Unit) 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
Taylor v. New York City Police Department FOIL Unit, 25 A.D.3d 347, 806 N.Y.S.2d 586 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.), entered September 14, 2004, dismissing a petition pursuant to the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

With respect to petitioner’s FOIL requests of May 27, July 14, September 8 and October 20, 2003, the petition was rendered moot by respondents’ production of records responsive to the requests as part of their motion to dismiss the instant proceeding, and certification that they had conducted a diligent search for the records they could not locate (see Matter of Robles v Borakove, 6 AD3d 216 [2004]; Matter of Alicea v New York City Police Dept., 287 AD2d 286, 287 [2001]; Matter of Davidson v Police Dept. of City of N.Y., 197 AD2d 466 [1993]). Since respondents did not withhold any documents as exempt, and the documents produced themselves revealed the nature of minimal redactions that were made pursuant to Public Officers Law § 87 (2) (b), an in camera inspection was unnecessary (see Robles; Davidson). With respect to petitioner’s FOIL request of November 26, 2003, the petition was properly dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies (see Matter of Jamison v Tesler, 300 AD2d 194 [2002]). We reject petitioner’s argument that because respondents did not respond to his November 26 request until December 12, after the statutory five-day deadline had expired (Public Officers Law § 89 [3]), he could properly institute this proceeding on January 7, 2004 without first taking an administrative appeal (cf. Lehigh Portland Cement Co. v New York State Dept. of Envtl. Conservation, 87 NY2d 136, 145 [1995]). We have considered petitioner’s other arguments and find them to be unavailing. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Friedman, Marlow, Sullivan and Malone, JJ.

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

Related

Matter of Pegram v. Metropolitan Transp. Auth.
2026 NY Slip Op 30930(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2026)
Matter of Dearie Law Firm, P.C. v. New York City Hous. Auth.
2026 NY Slip Op 30815(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2026)
Matter of Howard v. New York City Police Dept.
2024 NY Slip Op 06155 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2024)
Matter of Legal Aid Socy. v. New York City Health & Hosps.
2024 NY Slip Op 32820(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2024)
Matter of DeFreitas v. New York State Police Crime Lab
141 A.D.3d 1043 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Humane Society of United States v. Fanslau
54 A.D.3d 537 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Carty v. New York City Police Department
41 A.D.3d 150 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Babi v. David
35 A.D.3d 266 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
25 A.D.3d 347, 806 N.Y.S.2d 586, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/taylor-v-new-york-city-police-department-foil-unit-nyappdiv-2006.