Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Richard E. KWASNIK, Petitioner-Respondent, v. The CITY OF NEW YORK, Respondent, The City University of New York, Respondent-Appellant.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jane Solomon, J.), entered May 8, 1998, which, insofar as appealed from, directed respondent-appellant City University of New York to make FOIL disclosure of certain of its employees' non-CUNY public employment history and dates of attendance at academic institutions, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeals from orders, same court and Justice, entered on or about October 14, 1997 and May 1, 1998, withdrawn.
We reject CUNY's argument that the public employment history of its employees, insofar as revealed on their job applications, should be shielded from disclosure as an unwarranted invasion of the employees' privacy under Public Officers § 89(2)(b)(i). This result is supported by opinions of the Committee on Open Government, to which courts should defer (see, Miracle Mile Assocs. v. Yudelson, 68 A.D.2d 176, 181, 417 N.Y.S.2d 142, lv. denied 48 N.Y.2d 706, 422 N.Y.S.2d 68, 397 N.E.2d 758), favoring disclosure of public employees' resumes if only because public employment is, by dint of FOIL itself, a matter of public record (FOIL-AO-4010; FOIL-AO-7065; Public Officers Law § 87[3][b] ). The dates of attendance at academic institutions should also be subject to disclosure, at least where, as here, the employee did not meet the licensing requirement for employment when hired and therefore had to have worked a minimum number of years in the field in order to have qualified for the job. In such circumstances, the agency's need for the information would be great and the personal hardship of disclosure small (see, Public Officers Law § 89[2][b][iv] ).
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: June 17, 1999
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)