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.
IN RE: DAILY NEWS, L.P., et al., Petitioners-Respondents, v. CITY OF NEW YORK OFFICE OF PAYROLL ADMINISTRATION, Respondent-Appellant.
Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Debra A. James, J.), entered April 29, 2003, in a proceeding pursuant to the Freedom of Information Law, directing respondent City of New York Office of Payroll Administration to provide petitioners with the age and home zip code of every person employed by the New York City Board of Education (BOE) between July 1, 2000 and December 31, 2001, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Respondent's answer, simply parroting Public Officers Law § 89(2)(b)(v), claims exemption from disclosure because “[t]he ages and zip codes of BOE employees is information that is personal in nature, reported in confidence to the BOE, and is not relevant to the work of the BOE,” but is utterly devoid of any factual basis for these conclusions. Moreover, respondent is a distinct agency from nonparty Board of Education (see New York City Charter ch. 39 § 871), and any sworn statements made by respondent on behalf of the nonparty agency are therefore incompetent to support its claim that the requested information is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Law. Accordingly, respondent failed to satisfy its burden of demonstrating that the requested material indeed qualifies for the exemption (see Matter of Mantica v. New York State Dept. of Health, 94 N.Y.2d 58, 61, 699 N.Y.S.2d 1, 721 N.E.2d 17; Church of Scientology v. State of New York, 46 N.Y.2d 906, 414 N.Y.S.2d 900, 387 N.E.2d 1216). In any event, with respect to obtaining the zip codes of Board of Education employees, petitioner conceded at oral argument that it will accept, as satisfactory compliance with the Public Officers Law, the zip codes without cross references to any employee's name or other identifying feature.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: July 15, 2004
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)