IN RE: Jimmy WAGNER (2026)

DECISION & ORDER

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, to compel the production of certain records pursuant to the Freedom of Information Law (Public Officers Law art 6), the New York City Law Department appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Caroline Piela Cohen, J.), dated March 31, 2025.  The judgment, insofar as appealed from, granted the amended petition.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

In January 2024, the petitioner submitted a request pursuant to the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) (Public Officers Law art 6) and requested the production of certain records.  The New York City Law Department (hereinafter the Law Department) denied the petitioner's FOIL request, stating “[o]ur Office does not maintain the requested records in a manner that allows us to search for them.  In the case of your particular request, our Office cannot produce responsive records without the name of a Law Department custodian.”  The petitioner thereafter administratively appealed the denial.  The administrative appeal was denied for the same reason.

In May 2024, the petitioner commenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, to compel the Law Department to produce all records requested.  The Law Department opposed the amended petition, contending that the petitioner's FOIL request was unduly burdensome.  In a judgment dated March 31, 2025, the Supreme Court, among other things, granted the amended petition.  The Law Department appeals.

“To promote open government and public accountability, the FOIL imposes a broad duty on government to make its records available to the public” (Matter of Felici v. Nassau County Off. of Consumer Affairs, 217 A.D.3d 765, 766, 191 N.Y.S.3d 454 [internal quotation marks omitted];  see Matter of Aron Law, PLLC v. Town of Hempstead, 242 A.D.3d 880, 881, 245 N.Y.S.3d 85).  “Thus, when faced with a FOIL request, an agency must either disclose the record sought, deny the request and claim a specific exemption to disclosure, or certify that it does not possess the requested document and that it could not be located after a diligent search” (Matter of Felici v. Nassau County Off. of Consumer Affairs, 217 A.D.3d at 766, 191 N.Y.S.3d 454 [alteration and internal quotation marks omitted];  see Matter of Waldman v. County of Rockland, 241 A.D.3d 1344, 1346, 242 N.Y.S.3d 58).  “ ‘[T]he burden of proof rests solely with the [agency] to justify the denial of access to the requested records' ” (Matter of Goldstein v. Incorporated Vil. of Mamaroneck, 221 A.D.3d 111, 117, 199 N.Y.S.3d 564, quoting Matter of Data Tree, LLC v. Romaine, 9 N.Y.3d 454, 463, 849 N.Y.S.2d 489, 880 N.E.2d 10).

Here, based on the record before this Court, there was no basis for the denial of the petitioner's FOIL request (see Matter of McFadden v. McDonald, 204 A.D.3d 672, 674, 166 N.Y.S.3d 47).  The Law Department failed to submit any evidence, such as an affidavit from someone with personal knowledge of the relevant facts, that a search could not be conducted at the time of the petitioner's initial FOIL request (see Matter of Aron Law, PLLC v. New York City Fire Dept., 242 A.D.3d 1084, 1085–1086, 245 N.Y.S.3d 147).

“ ‘Judicial review of an administrative determination is limited to the grounds invoked by the agency’ ” (Matter of McDevitt v. Suffolk County, 237 A.D.3d 940, 942, 230 N.Y.S.3d 406, quoting Matter of Madeiros v. New York State Educ. Dept., 30 N.Y.3d 67, 74, 64 N.Y.S.3d 635, 86 N.E.3d 527;  see Matter of McFadden v. McDonald, 204 A.D.3d at 674, 166 N.Y.S.3d 47).  Thus, we do not consider the Law Department's contention that the petitioner's FOIL request was unduly burdensome (see Matter of McDevitt v. Suffolk County, 237 A.D.3d at 942, 230 N.Y.S.3d 406).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the amended petition.

CONNOLLY, J.P., CHRISTOPHER, VENTURA and GOLIA, JJ., concur.