§Why CasetextPricing

In the Matter of Pamela A. Madeiros, Appellant,v.New York State Education Department et al., Respondents.

Brief

34 Cited authorities

  1. John Doe Agency v. John Doe Corp.

    493 U.S. 146 (1989)   Cited 544 times
    Holding that records originally assembled for other purposes can come within Exemption 7 if subsequently compiled for law enforcement purposes

  2. Church of Scientology, Etc. v. U.S. Dept

    611 F.2d 738 (9th Cir. 1980)   Cited 716 times
    Finding an exception to the first-to-file rule where the second-filed case had proceeded beyond the first-filed case

  3. Mayer Brown LLP v. Internal Revenue Service

    562 F.3d 1190 (D.C. Cir. 2009)   Cited 200 times
    Holding that the IRS properly withheld certain settlement guidelines pursuant to Exemption 7(E) on the ground that those guidelines "could encourage decisions to violate the law or evade punishment," even if they didn't "necessarily provide a blueprint for tax shelter schemes"

  4. Pub. Emps. for Envtl. Responsibility v. U.S. Section, International Boundary & Water Comm'n

    740 F.3d 195 (D.C. Cir. 2014)   Cited 153 times
    Holding documents satisfied threshold showing where they described security precautions to be implemented by law enforcement personnel around dams during emergency conditions

  5. Tax Analysts v. I.R.S

    294 F.3d 71 (D.C. Cir. 2002)   Cited 175 times
    Holding that memoranda from the IRS's Office of Chief Counsel did not qualify for Exemption 5 because the fact that they traveled "horizontally" to individual agency offices indicated that those statements actually represented the agency's "final legal position" on various matters

  6. Matter of Fink v. Lefkowitz

    47 N.Y.2d 567 (N.Y. 1979)   Cited 300 times
    Noting that FOIL "established a general policy [in favor of] disclosure"

  7. Lesher v. Hynes

    2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 2414 (N.Y. 2012)   Cited 70 times
    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).

  8. In re New York State Defenders Assoc

    87 A.D.3d 193 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)   Cited 56 times

    No. 511391. July 7, 2011. APPEAL from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Albany County (Michael C. Lynch, J.), entered October 20, 2010 in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78. The judgment dismissed petitioner's application to, among other things, review a determination of respondent New York State Police denying petitioner's Freedom of Information Law request. Andrew L. Kalloch, New York Civil Liberties Union Foundation, New York City, for appellant. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany

  9. Matter of Fappiano v. New York City Police Department

    95 N.Y.2d 738 (N.Y. 2001)   Cited 67 times

    Argued February 7, 2001. Decided March 27, 2001. APPEAL, in the first above-entitled proceeding, by permission of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, from an order of that court, entered December 21, 1999, which affirmed an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court (Beverly S. Cohen, J.), entered in New York County in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, granting a petition to review a determination of respondent which denied petitioner's

  10. In re New York Civil Liberties Union

    87 A.D.3d 336 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)   Cited 43 times

    No. 511892. July 7, 2011. APPEAL from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Saratoga County (Thomas D. Nolan, Jr., J.), entered December 20, 2010 in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78. The judgment denied petitioner's motion for an award of counsel fees. Adriana C. Pinon, New York Civil Liberties Union Foundation, New York City, for appellant. Anthony J. Izzo, City Attorney, Saratoga County, for respondents. Before: ROSE, J.P., MALONE JR., McCARTHY and EGAN JR., JJ. OPINION OF THE COURT STEIN, J

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

    5 U.S.C. § 552   Cited 12,166 times   556 Legal Analyses
    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

  12. Section 200.9 - Tuition rates for approved programs educating students with disabilities ages 3 to 21 years old who have been enrolled pursuant to articles 81 and 89 of the education law

    N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 8 § 200.9   Cited 13 times

    (a) Definitions. As used in this section: (1) Approved program means a program that provides special education to students with disabilities requiring the establishment of a tuition rate, in accordance with sections 4003, 4401, 4403, 4405, 4408 and 4410 of the Education Law. (2) Arm's-length transaction means one entered into by independent and unrelated persons in a good faith transaction between a willing buyer and a willing seller. (3) Base year means the July 1st through June 30th fiscal period

  13. Section 200.8 - State assistance for instruction of students with disabilities pursuant to sections 4406 and 4410 of the education law

    N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 8 § 200.8   Cited 5 times

    (a) Approval of orders of the Family Court. An order of the Family Court which directs that special educational services be provided to a student with a disability may be approved by the commissioner, provided that satisfactory evidence is submitted to establish that: (1) for services provided during the months of July and August through August 1989, such student is a child with a disability, as defined by section 4401 of the Education Law, and is not eligible for educational services pursuant to

  14. Section 200.18 - Fiscal audits of approved programs operated by private providers, special act school districts, boards of cooperative educational services and public school districts receiving public funds for the education of students with disabilities ages 3 to 21 who have been enrolled pursuant to articles 81 and 89 of the education law

    N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 8 § 200.18   Cited 5 times

    (a) Fiscal audits of all approved programs performed by the commissioner, the Office of the State Comptroller, other State agencies or agencies of other states. (1) All approved programs shall be subject to audit by the State. All such audits performed by the department shall be conducted in conformance with generally accepted auditing standards. Where other State agencies or the agencies of other states are involved in the funding of approved programs, any audits conducted by such agencies, and