From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Rushford v. Oneida-Herkimer Solid

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jul 14, 1995
217 A.D.2d 966 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

Opinion

July 14, 1995

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Oneida County, Tenney, J.

Present — Denman, P.J., Green, Pine, Callahan and Davis, JJ.


Judgment unanimously reversed on the law without costs and petition granted. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in denying the petition seeking to compel respondent to comply with petitioner's request for information pursuant to the Freedom of Information Law (Public Officers Law art 6). An agency must provide a "particularized and specific justification for denying access" ( Matter of Capital Newspapers v. Burns, 67 N.Y.2d 562, 566; see, Matter of Konigsberg v. Coughlin, 68 N.Y.2d 245, 251; Brown v. Town of Amherst, 195 A.D.2d 979, 979-980) and is required to support its claim of exemption from disclosure by setting forth a "factual basis" demonstrating that a statutory exemption applies ( Matter of Buffalo News v. Buffalo Mun. Hous. Auth., 163 A.D.2d 830, 831; see, Matter of Gannett Co. v. County of Monroe, 59 A.D.2d 309, 312, affd 45 N.Y.2d 954). Respondent failed to provide a factual basis for an exemption and thus, petitioner is entitled to the records sought.


Summaries of

Matter of Rushford v. Oneida-Herkimer Solid

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jul 14, 1995
217 A.D.2d 966 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
Case details for

Matter of Rushford v. Oneida-Herkimer Solid

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of RONALD J. RUSHFORD, Appellant, v. ONEIDA-HERKIMER SOLID…

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

Date published: Jul 14, 1995

Citations

217 A.D.2d 966 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
629 N.Y.S.2d 904

Citing Cases

Matter of DeCorse v. City of Buffalo

The City did not deny access to the records on the ground that those reports, if disclosed, would identify a…