Brady v. Maryland

Holding that the prosecution violates due process when it suppresses material, favorable evidence

Department of Justice v. Landano

Holding that the government is not entitled to the presumption that all sources supplying information to FBI in course of criminal investigation are confidential sources within meaning of section of FOIA exempting agency records compiled for law enforcement purposes

Gould v. New York City Police Department

In Matter of Gould v. New York City Police Dept. (89 N.Y.2d 267, 274-275), the Court of Appeals noted that "[a]ll government records are * * * presumptively open for public inspection and copying" under FOIL "unless they fall within one of the enumerated exemptions of Public Officers Law § 87(2)".

Data Tree v. Romaine

In Data Tree, a commercial enterprise requested that the Suffolk County Clerk provide it with certain real property records in electronic form.

Capital Newspapers v. Burns

In Matter of Capital Newspapers v. Burns, 67 N.Y.2d 562, 505 N.Y.S.2d 576, 496 N.E.2d 665 (Ct.App.1986), the Court of Appeals stated that " the legislative intent underlying the enactment of Civil Rights Law § 50-a was narrowly specific, ‘ to prevent time-consuming and perhaps vexatious investigation into irrelevant collateral matters in the context of a civil or criminal action.’ "

Friedman v. Rehal

Holding that the “Supreme Court has consistently treated exculpatory and impeachment evidence in the same way for the purpose of defining the obligation of a prosecutor to provide Brady material prior to trial, ... and the reasoning underlying Ruiz could support a similar ruling for a prosecutor's obligations prior to a guilty plea”

M. Farbman & Sons, Inc. v. New York City Health

Treating HHC as a governmental agency subject to FOIL's “legislative declaration that government is the public's business”

Lesher v. Hynes

In Lesher, for example, the prosecutor's general explanation that the correspondence sought contained information concerning the particulars of the crime and the identities and statements of witnesses and that "its release posed an obvious risk of prematurely tipping the District Attorney's hand" was sufficient to support reliance on the exemption (id. at 67-68).

Hanig v. State of New York Department of Motor Vehicles

Holding that the exemption encompasses information "that would ordinarily and reasonably be regarded as intimate, private information," in this case an employee's medical history

Capital Newspapers v. Whalen

In Matter of Capital Newspapers v Whalen (69 N.Y.2d 246), this Court noted the Legislature's policy that "FOIL is to be liberally construed and its exemptions narrowly interpreted so that the public is granted maximum access to the records of government" (id., at 252; Public Officers Law § 84; see also, Matter of Prisoners' Legal Servs. v New York State Dept. ofCorrectional Servs., 73 N.Y.2d 26; Matter of Washington Post Co. v New York State Ins. Dept., 61 N.Y.2d 557, 564; Matter of Fink v Lefkowitz, 47 N.Y.2d 567, 571).

Section 552 - Public information; agency rules, opinions, orders, records, and proceedings

Holding that the Court's entering of a “Stipulation and Order” approving the parties' terms of dismissal did not amount to a “court-ordered consent decree” that would render the plaintiff the prevailing party

Section 84 - Legislative declaration

Declaring that the public “should have access to the records of government in accordance with the provisions of this article”

Section 31 - Resignations