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: Anthony CARTY, Appellant, v. NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF PAROLE et al., Respondents.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Canfield, J.), entered March 9, 1999 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of respondent Division of Parole denying petitioner's request under the Freedom of Information Law.
Petitioner, an inmate at Greenhaven Correctional Facility in Dutchess County, commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding pursuant to the Freedom of Information Law (Public Officers Law art 6) (hereinafter FOIL) seeking the disclosure of letters of recommendation and other parole records relating to two former inmates who testified against petitioner at his criminal trial. Supreme Court dismissed the petition on the basis that, inter alia, the documents were exempt because disclosure would endanger the life or safety of a person (see, Public Officers Law § 87[2][f] ) and disclosure would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy (see, Public Officers Law § 87[2] [b] ). This appeal ensued.
Inasmuch as parole records have been held to be confidential (see, Executive Law § 259 k; Matter of Zarvela v. New York State Div. of Parole, 252 A.D.2d 696, 675 N.Y.S.2d 917; Matter of Collins v. New York State Div. of Parole, 251 A.D.2d 738, 674 N.Y.S.2d 145, lv. denied 92 N.Y.2d 811, 680 N.Y.S.2d 457, 703 N.E.2d 269) and given the possibility that release of such records could endanger the life and safety of a person, we conclude that the parole documents are not subject to FOIL disclosure, even if certain information is redacted (see, Matter of Collins v. New York State Div. of Parole, supra). To the extent that petitioner's remaining contentions are properly before this Court, we find them to be without merit.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
MUGGLIN, J.
MERCURE, J.P., SPAIN, CARPINELLO and ROSE, JJ., concur.
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: November 16, 2000
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third 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)