M. Farbman & Sons, Inc. v. New York City Health
Case Details
- Judge(s)
- Cooke, Jasen, Jones, Kaye, Ler, Meyer, Simons, Wacht
- Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
- Published
- Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
- appeal
Related Laws
Outcome
The court upheld dismissal of petitioner's Freedom of Information Law request, finding that FOIL cannot be used to obtain documents for private contract litigation that would be barred under CPLR discovery rules, and that the requested documents are exempt as inter- or intra-agency materials.
Excerpt
POINTS OF COUNSEL I. A party may properly employ the Freedom of Information Law to examine public records even if it anticipates, or is actually engaged in, litigation with the public agency. (.Matter of John P. v Whalen, 54 NY2d 89; Matter of Burke v Yudelson, 51 AD2d 673; Matter of D’Alessandro u Unemployment Ins. Appeal Bd., 56 AD2d 762; Arzuaga v New York City Tr. Auth., 73 AD2d 518; Brady & Co. v City of New York, 84 AD2d 113.) II. Respondents failed to meet their burden to demonstrate convincingly that the requested documents fall within a statutory exemption. CMatter of Fink v Lefkowitz, 47 NY2d 567; Matter of Westchester Rockland Newspapers v Kim-ball, 50 NY2d 575; Church of Scientology u State of New York, 46 NY2d 906; Matter of Miracle Mile Assoc, v Yudel-son, 68 AD2d 176; Contracting Plumbers Coop. Restoration Corp. v Ameruso, 105 Mise 2d 951.) III. The instant Freedom of Information Law request was not overly broad. (Matter of Zanger v Chinlund, 106 Mise 2d 86; Matter of Johnson Newspaper Corp. v Stainkamp, 94 AD2d 825.) I. The court below properly dismissed petitioner’s demand for documents under the Freedom of Information Law. Petitioner may not employ FOIL to obtain documents for its private contract action which it would be barred from receiving under the discovery provisions of the CPLR. Moreover, the documents in the remaining categories of the FOIL request are exempt from disclosure as inter- or intra-agency materials under FOIL. (Arzuaga v New York City Tr. Auth., 73 AD2d 518; Brady & Co. v City of New York, 84 AD2d 113, 56 NY2d 711; Matter v Unemployment Ins. Appeal Bd., 56 AD2d 762; Matter of Fitzpatrick v County of Nassau, Dept, of Public Works, 83 Mise 2d 884, 53 AD2d 628; Matter of Sea Crest Constr. Corp. v Stubing, 82 AD2d 546; Matter of Westchester Rock-land Newspapers v Mosczydlowski, 58 AD2d 234; Matter of JohnP. v Whalen, 54 NY2d 89; Matter of Doolanv Board of Coop. Educational Servs., 48 NY2d 341; NLRB v Sears, Roebuck
What This Ruling Means
This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.
Similar Rulings
Browse Related
Facing something similar at work?
Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.
This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.