From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Hanig v. State of New York Dept

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Dec 27, 1990
168 A.D.2d 884 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)

Opinion

December 27, 1990

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Albany County (Bradley, J.).


At issue on this appeal is whether the response given by an applicant for a New York license to the question on the application form which asks, "Do you have, or are you currently receiving treatment for, any disabilities?", is subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information Law (Public Officers Law art 6). We agree with Supreme Court that respondents acted properly in redacting or masking this portion of the requested application form.

Public Officers Law § 87 (2) (b) permits an agency to deny access to records or portions thereof if disclosure would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. Public Officers Law § 89 (2) (b) (i) provides that "[a]n unwarranted invasion of personal privacy includes, but shall not be limited to * * * disclosure of employment, medical or credit histories". Notwithstanding petitioner's argument to the contrary, we have no difficulty in concluding that an applicant's existing medical condition, particularly the presence or absence of a disability, constitutes a relevant and material part of the applicant's medical history, and we reject petitioner's claim that the statute applies only to complete and precise technical appraisals prepared by medically qualified personnel. The relevant inquiry is not, in our view, whether the information was compiled by medically qualified personnel or whether the information in and of itself constitutes a complete and precise technical appraisal of a person's medical past. Rather, the information constitutes medical history, the disclosure of which would be an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy pursuant to Public Officers Law § 89 (2) (b), if it is the type of information that one would reasonably expect to be included as a relevant and material part of a proper medical history. Since the information at issue here meets this standard, respondents had the discretionary authority to deny access to the information (Public Officers Law § 87 [b]), and we see no abuse of discretion here.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. Mahoney, P.J., Kane, Casey, Weiss and Mercure, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Matter of Hanig v. State of New York Dept

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Dec 27, 1990
168 A.D.2d 884 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
Case details for

Matter of Hanig v. State of New York Dept

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of JOEL D. HANIG, Appellant, v. STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

Date published: Dec 27, 1990

Citations

168 A.D.2d 884 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
564 N.Y.S.2d 805

Citing Cases

Berger v.

Public Officers Law § 89(2)(b)(i) expressly includes "medical . . . histories" within the ambit of…

Matter of Newton v. Dist. Att. of Bronx Cty

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Douglas E. McKeon, J.). Neither the hospital records of the…