New York's Highest Court Admonishes Department of Education for Refusing to Comply with FOIL Request

Bloomberg Law®, an integrated legal research and business intelligence solution, combines trusted news and analysis with cutting-edge technology to provide legal professionals tools to be...

Rebecca L. Tsai | Bloomberg Law Matter of Schenectady County Society for the Prevention of Cruelty of Animals, Inc. v. Mills, No. 163, 2011 NY Slip Op 07476, 2011 BL 273122 (N.Y. Oct. 25, 2011) Petitioner, the Schenectady County Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Inc., sought the names and addresses of veterinarians who were licensed by the state's Department of Education. When the Department indicated that it would not provide street addresses, petitioner inquired about obtaining business addresses instead. The Department responded that it did not have business addresses for all the licensees. Petitioner then filed a Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) request seeking the same information, but, once again, the Department refused to provide street addresses, stating that it was "unable to distinguish a licensee's business address from a residential address" due to the way its files were maintained. Petitioner subsequently commenced the instant proceeding, seeking only a photocopy of the list maintained by the Department. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, but the Appellate Division reversed. The Department then appealed as of right to the New York Court of Appeals under CPLR 601(a). While recognizing that "FOIL generally does not require an agency to create a new record," the Court stated that the Department should have simply redacted its existing list of addresses. In the Court's view, it was "obvious . . . that, if the Department does not want to supply home addresses, it should simply delete them from the list." Given that there were only 72 licensed veterinarians in the county, the Court commented that sorting through the list to delete any personal addresses "should not be a burdensome task." Affirming the Appellate Division's decision, the Court expressed that it was "at a loss to understand why this case has been litigated" and cautioned that the Department should "generally comply with their FOIL obligations in a more efficient way." DisclaimerThis document and any discussions set forth herein are for informational purposes only, and should not be construed as legal advice, which has to be addressed to particular facts and circumstances involved in any given situation. Review or use of the document and any discussions does not create an attorney-client relationship with the author or publisher. To the extent that this document may contain suggested provisions, they will require modification to suit a particular transaction, jurisdiction or situation. Please consult with an attorney with the appropriate level of experience if you have any questions. Any tax information contained in the document or discussions is not intended to be used, and cannot be used, for purposes of avoiding penalties imposed under the United States Internal Revenue Code. Any opinions expressed are those of the author. The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. and its affiliated entities do not take responsibility for the content in this document or discussions and do not make any representation or warranty as to their completeness or accuracy.©2014 The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. All rights reserved. Bloomberg Law Reports ® is a registered trademark and service mark of The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc.

Request Bloomberg Law®