IN RE ADVOCATES FOR CHILDREN OF NEW YORK, INC. pet-ap, v. THE NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION res-res

8738. IN RE ADVOCATES FOR CHILDREN OF NEW YORK, INC. pet-ap, v. THE NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION res-res — Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP, New York (Jed M. Schwartz of counsel), for ap — Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Scott Shorr of counsel), for res — Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Alexander W. Hunter, J.), entered June 14, 2012, denying the petition seeking, inter alia, to compel respondents to disclose documents requested by petitioners pursuant to the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL), and to enjoin respondents from further extending their time to respond to petitioners' FOIL requests, and dismissing the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

8738. IN RE ADVOCATES FOR CHILDREN OF NEW YORK, INC. pet-ap, v. THE NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION res-res — Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP, New York (Jed M. Schwartz of counsel), for ap — Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Scott Shorr of counsel), for res — Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Alexander W. Hunter, J.), entered June 14, 2012, denying the petition seeking, inter alia, to compel respondents to disclose documents requested by petitioners pursuant to the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL), and to enjoin respondents from further extending their time to respond to petitioners’ FOIL requests, and dismissing the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioners failed to exhaust their administrative remedies with respect to FOIL Request Number 6762. Petitioners’ administrative appeal was filed more than 30 days after respondents’ letter denying the request (see Matter of McGriff v. Bratton, 293 AD2d 401 [1st Dept 2002]). Petitioners’ argument that this letter did not constitute a denial of their request because it lacked a notice of the right to appeal, is unavailing since the letter clearly stated that it was the “final response” to the request.

IN RE ADVOCATES FOR CHILDREN OF NEW YORK, INC. pet-ap, v. THE NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION res-res

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal