Recent Rulings and Legislative Changes Transforming the Landscape of New York's Freedom of Information Law
New York's Freedom of Information Law is transforming. And whether you are a member of the media, a FOIL officer for a public agency, or even a criminal defense attorney, you should be aware of the progression of changes.
February 14, 2022 at 11:00 AM
8 minute read
Over the last two years, the ground beneath us has begun to shift when it comes to accessing government records in New York, particularly those related to policing. Some of these movements have been seismic. Others have been more subtle. But the result is unmistakably clear: New York's Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) is transforming. And whether you are a member of the media, a FOIL officer for a public agency, or even a criminal defense attorney, you should be aware of the progression of changes.
|FOIL and §50-a
New York adopted FOIL in the 1970s "under the premise that the public is vested with an inherent right to know and that official secrecy is anathematic to our form of government." Fink v. Lefkowitz, 47 N.Y.2d 567, 571 (1979).
Generally under FOIL, all government agency records are available for public inspection, unless a specific exemption permits the agency to deny access. See Pub. Off. Law §87(2). For example, a state agency is prohibited from releasing records that, if disclosed, would constitute an "unwarranted invasion of personal privacy." The legislature recently repealed one critical exemption to FOIL, New York Civil Rights Law §50-a. Under §50-a, most records related to law enforcement officers were kept from public view. In repealing §50-a, the legislature stated that this portion of the law undermined the purpose of FOIL. Prior to this change, municipalities were exempted from having to produce the records in response to a FOIL request, and prosecutors did not have to produce documents related to officers who testify at trial.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllWhen It Comes to Local Law 97 Compliance, You’ve Gotta Have (Good) Faith
8 minute readFrom ‘Deep Sadness’ to Little Concern, Gaetz’s Nomination Draws Sharp Reaction From Lawyers
7 minute readDeposing Former Mayor Bill de Blasio; Misrepresentations To Induce Investment: This Week in Scott Mollen’s Realty Law Digest
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Biden Has Few Ways to Protect His Environmental Legacy, Say Lawyers, Advocates
- 2UN Treaty Enacting Cybercrime Standards Likely to Face Headwinds in US, Other Countries
- 3Clark Hill Acquires L&E Boutique in Mexico City, Adding 5 Lawyers
- 46th Circuit Judges Spar Over Constitutionality of Ohio’s Ballot Initiative Procedures
- 5On The Move: Polsinelli Adds Health Care Litigator in Nashville, Ex-SEC Enforcer Joins BCLP in Atlanta
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250