Two Appellate Division decisions, each decided on May 21, and each construing similar sections of the Open Public Records Act, offer starkly different approaches to statutory construction of OPRA and present disparate rationales for their respective results. Unless the Supreme Court grants a petition for certification that has been filed in one of the cases, these decisions leave in place the differing approaches that courts have employed to resolve the often found tension between OPRA’s purpose and its practical applications.
In Paff v. City of East Orange , 407 N.J. Super. 221 (App. Div. 2009), Judge Stephen Skillman, writing for Part A, affirmed the decision of the Government Records Council, and held that an OPRA request faxed to the City’s custodian of records was properly denied because the City was entitled to limit the methods of transmission of requests enumerated in OPRA.
This content has been archived.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
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
