IN RE: Denym DEBNAM (2026)

Judgment (denominated an order), Supreme Court, New York County (Paul A. Goetz, J.), entered February 5, 2026, granting the motion of respondents Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) and its employees to dismiss the amended petition to require the MTA to produce records allegedly denied in a Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) request that was under review and in 72 other purported FOIL requests, denying petitioner's motions to amend the amended petition and for a default judgment, and dismissing the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner's original FOIL request, submitted February 18, 2025, was appropriately denied and leave to amend was providently denied for failure to exhaust administrative remedies (see Watergate II Apts. v Buffalo Sewer Auth., 46 NY2d 52, 57 [1978];  Matter of Friedman v Rice, 30 NY3d 461, 473–474 [2017];  CPLR 3025[b];  7801[1] ).  The February 18, 2025 request was under consideration when petitioner commenced this proceeding on June 6, 2025 and when he filed the amended petition on August 14, 2025.  Petitioner then moved to further amend after he received a partial response to his FOIL request and was informed that additional efforts to locate responsive documents were ongoing.

Supreme Court also properly dismissed the amended petition insofar as petitioner sought review of alleged constructive denials of the dozens of purported FOIL requests he sent in April 2025.  Those purported FOIL requests were not properly submitted to the MTA, which provides for submission of FOIL requests either through an online portal (see Public Officers Law § 89[3][b] ) or by physical mail to the MTA's FOIL team.  Notably, petitioner appropriately submitted his first request through the MTA online portal and by physical mail, but he failed to send his remaining requests by either of these methods.  Even when instructed to submit all his additional FOIL requests using the MTA online portal, he declined.  Further, he failed to follow the MTA's procedure for appealing constructive denials of these purported requests (see e.g. Surveillance Tech. Oversight Project v Metropolitan Tr. Auth., 2023 NY Slip Op 34502[U], *3–4 [Sup Ct, NY County 2023] ).  Thus, petitioner failed to exhaust his administrative remedies regarding these FOIL requests.

Supreme Court appropriately denied petitioner's motion for a default judgment, as he moved for relief while the MTA's cross-motion to dismiss was still pending (see CPLR 7804[f] ).

We have considered petitioner's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.