Opinion
02-17-2016
In the Matter of John L. WESLOWSKI, appellant, v. Edwin J. DAY, etc., et al., respondents.
John L. Weslowski, Schenectady, N.Y., appellant pro se. Saretsky Katz & Dranoff, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Robert B. Weissman of counsel), for respondents.
John L. Weslowski, Schenectady, N.Y., appellant pro se.Saretsky Katz & Dranoff, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Robert B. Weissman of counsel), for respondents.
In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, to review a determination of the Rockland County Records Access Appeals Officer dated November 16, 2010, the petitioner appeals, by permission, from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Kelly, J.), dated October 10, 2014, which, in effect, struck his demand for a jury trial.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
As fully set forth in our decision in a previous appeal (see Matter of Weslowski v. Vanderhoef, 98 A.D.3d 1123, 951 N.Y.S.2d 538 ), the determination which is the subject of this proceeding conditioned the disclosure of public records pursuant to the Freedom of Information Law (Public Officers Law § 84 et seq. ) upon the petitioner's prepayment of certain estimated costs. In his petition pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review that determination, the petitioner seeks relief which includes a permanent injunction against the County of Rockland to prohibit it from imposing the estimated costs and to desist from engaging in practices designed to impair his access to the requested records.
Inasmuch as the petition sought equitable relief in the form of a permanent injunction, the petitioner was not entitled to a jury trial (see Di Menna v. Cooper & Evans Co., 220 N.Y. 391, 396, 115 N.E. 993 ; Ayromlooi v. Staten Is. Univ. Hosp., 7 A.D.3d 475, 475–476, 776 N.Y.S.2d 305 ; Chim Chul Yi v. Marcy Realty Co., 291 A.D.2d 368, 736 N.Y.S.2d 883 ; City of New York v. Philips, 272 A.D.2d 568, 568–569, 709 N.Y.S.2d 417 ; Bockino v. Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 224 A.D.2d 471, 471–472, 638 N.Y.S.2d 137 ; Hausner v. Mendelow, 198 A.D.2d 210, 210, 603 N.Y.S.2d 498 ; see also 8–4101 Weinstein–Korn–Miller, N.Y. Civ. Prac. CPLR ¶ 4101.37 [Note: online treatise] ). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly, in effect, struck the petitioner's demand for a jury trial.
RIVERA, J.P., SGROI, MILLER and HINDS–RADIX, JJ., concur.