The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 2, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 were read on this motion to/for ARTICLE 78 (BODY OR OFFICER). DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION In this Article 78 proceeding, Petitioner Aron Law PLLC seeks an order, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Law (“FOIL”), directing Respondent New York Police Department (“NYPD”) to produce “any and all arrests report, complaint reports, and online booking sheet, for arrests made on May 19, May 20, 2021 in connection with protests held in and around Times Square.” (NYSCEF Doc No. 1, Petition, at 9; NYSCEF Doc No. 3.) Background Petitioner made its initial request on May 25, 2021 (NYSCEF Doc No. 3), which was denied on May 27, 2021 “on the basis that [the] request is too broad in nature and does not describe a specific document.” (NYSCEF Doc No. 4.) On June 1, 2021, a Records Access Appeals Officer (“RAO”) denied Petitioner’s appeal, pursuant to Public Officers Law (“POL”) §87[2][e][i], on the grounds that disclosure of the records sought “would interfere with law enforcement investigations or judicial proceedings.” (NYSCEF Doc No. 5.) The RAO explained that the records pertained to arrestees whose prosecutions remained pending, and disclosure “could result in witness tampering or the tainting of a jury pool and/or the perpetrator evading detection or prosecution.” (Id.) The RAO also stated that, pursuant to POL §87[2][b], disclosure “would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy” of the individuals. Petitioner commenced this action on September 1, 2021 and the parties repeatedly stipulated to adjourn the motion to April 5, 2022. (NYSCEF Doc Nos. 9-12, 14-24.) On February 9, 2022, Respondent provided seven non-sealed arrest records and corresponding police reports to Petitioner, with redactions made to “NYPD web page addresses and [the home addresses, dates of birth, and NYSID numbers of the defendants], although the names of the defendants were not redacted.” (NYSCEF Doc No. 26, Cross-motion, at 14; NYSCEF Doc No. 32, Redacted Arrest Records; NYSCEF Doc No. 33, Redacted Reports.) Respondent cross-moves for dismissal, arguing that the instant proceeding is rendered moot as a result of its production of the redacted records, that all redactions were proper, and that, although there are relevant records pertaining to one more arrest, those records are sealed. (Crossmotion at
