Thomas v. Records Access Officer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Thomas v. Records Access Officer

205 A.D.2d 786, 613 N.Y.S.2d 929, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6569

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

DecidedJune 27, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 205 A.D.2d 786 (Thomas v. Records Access Officer) 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

Thomas v. Records Access Officer, 205 A.D.2d 786, 613 N.Y.S.2d 929, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6569 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to compel the production of certain documents pursuant to the Freedom of Information Law (Public Officers Law § 84 et seq.), the petitioner appeals from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Starkey, J.), dated August 14, 1991, as dismissed the petition, except insofar as it was to compel the production of "work sheets”.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

As we stated in Matter of Key v Hynes (205 AD2d 779 [decided herewith]), it is error to accept wholly conclusory allegations as a substitute for proof that an agency governed by the Freedom of Information Law (Public Officers Law § 84 et seq.) has been unable to locate a document after having conducted a "diligent search” (Public Officers Law § 89 [3]). In this case, however, the employee who conducted the actual search for the documents in question submitted an affidavit which provided an adequate basis upon which to conclude that a "diligent search” for the documents in question had been made (see, Matter of Key v Hynes, supra). The Supreme Court went further and ordered a hearing at which both this employee and a supervising Assistant District Attorney appeared. We reject the petitioner’s contentions that he had the right to be present at this hearing (see generally, Pope v Pope, 198 AD2d 406) and that he had the right to the assignment of counsel. The evidence produced at this hearing was more than adequate to show that a diligent search for the documents requested had been made. Bracken, J. P., Miller, Copertino and Hart, 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 production of certain documents pursuant to the Freedom of Information Law (Public Officers Law § 84 et seq.), the petitioner appeals from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Starkey, J.), dated August 14, 1991, as dismissed the petition, except insofar as it was to compel the production of "work sheets”.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

As we stated in Matter of Key v Hynes (205 AD2d 779 [decided herewith]), it is error to accept wholly conclusory allegations as a substitute for proof that an agency governed by the Freedom of Information Law (Public Officers Law § 84 et seq.) has been unable to locate a document after having conducted a "diligent search” (Public Officers Law § 89 [3]). In this case, however, the employee who conducted the actual search for the documents in question submitted an affidavit which provided an adequate basis upon which to conclude that a "diligent search” for the documents in question had been made (see, Matter of Key v Hynes, supra). The Supreme Court went further and ordered a hearing at which both this employee and a supervising Assistant District Attorney appeared. We reject the petitioner’s contentions that he had the right to be present at this hearing (see generally, Pope v Pope, 198 AD2d 406) and that he had the right to the assignment of counsel. The evidence produced at this hearing was more than adequate to show that a diligent search for the documents requested had been made. Bracken, J. P., Miller, Copertino and Hart, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

205 A.D.2d 786, 613 N.Y.S.2d 929, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6569, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thomas-v-records-access-officer-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack