The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 002) 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 44, 49 were read on this motion to/for ARTICLE 78 (BODY OR OFFICER). The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 003) 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 45, 46, 47, 50 were read on this motion to/for CONTEMPT. The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 004) 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57 were read on this motion to/for ATTORNEY — FEES. DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION In motion sequence 002, petitioner The Jewish Press Inc. seeks an order directing respondent the New York City Police Department (NYPD) to produce documents pursuant to petitioner’s 2019 FOIL request, in accordance with the Appellate Division, First Department’s January 12, 2021 decision and order. In motion sequence 003, brought pursuant to Judiciary Law §753, petitioner seeks to hold respondent in civil contempt for allegedly failing to comply with the First Department’s decision and order dated January 12, 2021 and the First Department’s decision and order dated March 18, 2021 (the Appellate Division orders). Pursuant to Judiciary Law §773, petitioner is seeking damages and attorney’s fees incurred as a result of respondent’s failure to comply with the Appellate Division orders. Respondent opposes the motion and states that it has complied with the Appellate Division orders. In motion sequence 004, petitioner seeks an order awarding costs and attorneys’ fees pursuant to Public Officers Law §89 (4) (c) for substantially prevailing in the litigation. Respondent opposes the motions. The motions are consolidated for disposition. As set forth below, motion sequences 002 and 003 are granted, and motion sequence 004 is denied. BACKGROUND AND FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS On April 23, 2019, petitioner submitted a request to respondent under Public Officers Law, §84, et seq., also known as the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL), seeking accident investigation reports and video footage in connection with a cyclist accident that occurred in Brooklyn on January 6, 2019. On May 3, 2019, respondent denied the request “on the basis of Public Officers Law Section 87 (2) (b) as such information, if disclosed, would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy.” NYSCEF Doc. 4 at 1. Petitioner appealed this determination. Pursuant to a letter dated May 6, 2019, petitioner was notified that its appeal was denied, “because the disclosure of the requested records would interfere with judicial proceedings, specifically, the pending adjudication of traffic summons(es) issued as a result of the incident referred to in your request. [Public Officers Law Section 87 (2) (i)].” NYSCEF Doc. No. 6 at 1. Petitioner commenced an Article 78 proceeding seeking, in pertinent part, a judgment “[v]acating, overruling and prohibiting the enforcement of the final administrative decision of May 6, 2019; and (c) Directing NYPD to provide Petitioner with immediate access to the records specified in the Request; (d) Awarding Petitioner its costs and attorneys’ fees pursuant to Public Officers Law §89(4)(c).” NYSCEF Doc. No. 2 at 1. Respondent cross-moved to dismiss. Pursuant to a decision and order dated August 25, 2020, this court denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding. In relevant part, the court found that the Traffic Violations Bureau (TVB) proceeding constitutes a judicial proceeding under FOIL, that respondent identified generic document description categories and that respondent adequately described the risks posed by disclosure of these categories of documents. In its submissions, respondent had noted that it had “located the video footage, police accident report, complaint follow-up reports (containing the requested witness statements), complaint report, summonses and other record detailing the NYPD’s investigation and findings into the cyclist and vehicle collision during the Incident.” NYSCEF Doc. No. 13, Lombardia affirmation, 28. On appeal, the Appellate Division, First Department, reversed this court’s determination. In the decision dated January 12, 2021, the Court held that “[t]he only FOIL exemption at issue in this case applies to records that ‘are compiled for law enforcement purposes and which, if disclosed, would…interfere…judicial proceedings.’” Matter of Jewish Press, Inc., v. New York City Police Dept., 190 AD3d 490, 490 (1st Dept 2021) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The Court agreed that TVB hearings are judicial proceedings. Nonetheless, the Court found that, “under the specific facts presented here,” respondent failed to meet its burden “of showing a particularized justification for withholding the records at issue pursuant to the interference exemption.” Id. at 491. The Court concluded, in pertinent part: “NYPD asserts that any release of documents would somehow tip the hand of the TVB’s prosecuting attorney or prevent the prosecutor from testing the recollection of witnesses. Yet, NYPD concedes that these documents would be released to the motorist who would not be under any legal admonition not to release the documents to others. Additionally, the recollection of witnesses and the basis of their testimony would certainly be determined by questioning and cross examination at the hearing. Given this, we find that NYPD’s blanket denial of document release fell short of meeting its admittedly low burden.” Id. (citations omitted). Although the Court ultimately granted the petition and denied the cross motion to dismiss, it “[found] no basis for awarding attorney’s fees and costs to petitioner….” Id. In relevant part, petitioner moved for leave to argue the issue of attorney’s fees, or in the alternative, leave to appeal. Respondent cross-moved for clarification or remand. Specifically, respondent moved for, “an order, pursuant to CPLR 2221(a), modifying this Court’s January 12, 2021 decision and order to clarify whether respondent NYPD is permitted to redact portions of the records responsive to Jewish Press’s FOIL request prior to disclosure on the grounds that other FOIL exemptions continue to apply; or, in the alternative (2) an order remanding this proceeding to Supreme Court and directing it to perform an in camera review of the responsive records to determine whether redactions are warranted based on other FOIL exemptions.” NYSCEF Doc. 42, notice of cross motion at 1-2. Respondent alleged that, in its decision, the Court did not address the applicability of any other FOIL exemptions other than the judicial interference exemption. However, according to respondent, it had explained that other FOIL exemptions may continue to apply to the requested records. For instance, some of the requested records allegedly result in an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy or are exempt from disclosure “because they have been sealed pursuant to CPL 160.55.” Id., Young affirmation, 6. Respondent summarized that it is requesting “clarification.” It stated, in relevant part: “Did this Court intend to order the NYPD to disclose every portion of every document responsive to Jewish Press’s request, even if some portions are exempt from disclosure under other FOIL exemptions besides the judicial interference exemption? Or does this Court’s order allow the NYPD to redact portions of responsive records to properly comply with its FOIL obligations? “In the alternative, the NYPD requests an order remanding this proceeding to Supreme Court and directing it to perform an in camera review of responsive records to determine whether redactions are warranted based on other FOIL exemptions.” Id.,
