IN RE: the Application of Christopher Holbdy (2026)

Currently before the Court is a Verified Petition filed by Petitioner, Christopher Holbdy, pursuant to article 78 of the CPLR, which seeks, inter alia, an Order compelling Respondents to produce all records in response to Petitioner's requests made under the New York Freedom of Information Law ("FOIL"), Public Officers Law § 84, et seq. Respondents have filed a Verified Answer and argue that the records sought by Petitioner are exempt under Public Officers Law § 87(2)(e) because their disclosure would interfere with a law enforcement investigation. (NYSCEF Nos. 17, 20, 23.)

This matter was made returnable on August 17, 2026, at which time counsel for the respective parties appeared and placed arguments on the record. During this court appearance, counsel discussed a potential resolution of this matter based on Petitioner's revised request for a narrower scope of documents. The matter was adjourned to allow counsel additional time to engage in settlement negotiations. Thereafter, the Court was informed on September 14, 2026, that a settlement could not be reached and an adjudication on the merits of the Petition is necessary.

Accordingly, after carefully considering the parties' respective submissions and having heard and duly considered arguments from the parties during the Court's motion term held on August 17, 2026, the relief requested in the Petition is GRANTED IN PART for the reasons set forth below.

I. RELEVANT BACKGROUND

According to the Petition, Petitioner was the victim of a robbery in the City of Syracuse on or about December 18, 2025. (NYSCEF No. 1, at ¶ 13.) Petitioner reported the robbery to the Onondaga County Sheriff's Department, which responded to the incident on the same date. (Id. at ¶¶ 14-15.) The Sheriff's Department prepared an official police report that documented the incident and it was assigned case number 25-616362. (Id. at ¶ 16.) The Petition requests a complete copy of this police report so Petitioner can submit it to substantiate an insurance claim for the losses he suffered during the robbery. (Id. at ¶ 17.)

On January 8, 2026, Petitioner submitted a written FOIL request to the Onondaga County Sheriff's Department for a complete copy of the police report. (Id. at ¶ 20.) Receipt of the FOIL request was acknowledged on the same date by Respondent Kiggins. (Id. at ¶ 22.) Petitioner's FOIL request was thereafter denied on January 22, 2026, on the basis that "disclosure of these records would interfere with law enforcement investigations." (Id. at ¶ 25.) On February 21, 2026, Petitioner challenged the denial of his FOIL Request by filing an administrative appeal, which was subsequently denied on March 10, 2026, for the same reason. (Id. at ¶¶ 29, 32.)

Petitioner argues that the denial of his FOIL request is improper because Respondents have not provided a particularized and specific justification for withholding the subject records and have instead made conclusory and blanket assertions. (Id. at ¶¶ 40-41.) Specifically, Petitioner argues that Respondents have not identified any ongoing investigation or specific interference that would result from disclosure of the police report. (Id. at ¶ 42.) Even if an investigation is ongoing, Petitioner argues that he is still entitled to redacted and non-exempt, segregable portions of the police report.

In opposition to the Petition, Respondents have submitted an affirmation from a Lieutenant in the Criminal Investigations Division of the Onondaga County Sheriff's Department. (NYSCEF No. 20.) According to the Lieutenant, there is an ongoing investigation of "certain suspicious aspects" of the robbery involving Petitioner and, to protect the integrity of the investigation, it is "imperative" that the information sought by Petitioner not be released at this time. (Id.) Respondents have submitted the requested documents for in camera review. (NYSCEF No. 25.)

As discussed above, Petitioner narrowed his request for certain information during the court appearance held on August 17, 2026. Petitioner now seeks records establishing the date, time, location of the incident, and the specific property stolen. (NYSCEF No. 22.)

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

The FOIL statute creates a three-step process (see Public Officers Law § 89[3], [4]). An agency that initially denies a request is not required to specify a reason for the denial (see Public Officers Law § 89[3][a]). Upon the second step, which is the administrative appeal, the agency is required to "fully explain in writing . . . the reasons for further denial" (Public Officers Law § 89[4][a]). The third step is a CPLR article 78 proceeding, in which the agency "shall have the burden of proving that such record falls within the provisions of" a statutory exception (Public Officers Law § 89[4][b]; see Public Officers Law § 87[2]).

When a FOIL request is denied, the standard of review is not whether the decision was arbitrary and capricious, but whether the determination was affected by an error of law (see Matter of Thomas v Condon, 128 AD3d 528, 529 [1st Dept 2015]). Exemptions are to be "narrowly construed" (see Matter of Thomas v New York City Dept. of Educ., 103 AD3d 495, 496 [1st Dept 2013]) and "blanket exemptions for particular types of documents are inimical to FOIL's policy of open government. Instead, to invoke one of the exemptions of section 87 (2), the agency must articulate particularized and specific justification for not disclosing requested documents" (Gould v New York City Police Dept., 89 NY2d 267, 275 [1996]). "When an agency claims a FOIL exemption that cannot be evaluated on the basis of the documentation submitted on the motion, an in camera inspection is an appropriate, and likely necessary, method for the court to evaluate whether the exemption is applicable, in that the court may then balance the right of access against the agency's interest in nondisclosure, without the contents of the documents being compromised prior to the ruling" (DJL Restaurant Corp. v Dept. of Bldgs. of City of NY, 273 AD2d 167, 168 [1st Dept 2000]).

Under Public Officers Law § 87(2)(e), documents exempted from FOIL include documents that

are compiled for law enforcement purposes and which, if disclosed, would: (i) interfere with law enforcement investigations or judicial proceedings; (ii) deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or impartial adjudication; (iii) identify a confidential source or disclose confidential information relating to a criminal investigation; or (iv) reveal criminal investigative techniques or procedures, except routine techniques and procedures.

The prevention of such interference requires that "violators of the law not be apprised of the nonroutine procedures by which an agency obtains its information" (Matter of Fink v Lefkowitz, 47 NY2d 567, 572 [1979]). Moreover, "the purpose of the Freedom of Information Law is not to enable persons to use agency records to frustrate pending or threatened investigations nor to use that information to construct a defense to impede a prosecution" (id.).

"Not all material compiled for law enforcement purposes is exempt from disclosure. Material so compiled is exempt only if it is of a nature that, if disclosed, would interfere with law enforcement investigations or judicial proceedings, deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or impartial adjudication, identify a confidential source or disclose confidential information relating to a criminal investigation, or reveal criminal investigative techniques or procedures, except routine techniques and proceedings" (Brown v Town of Amherst, 195 AD2d 979 [4th Dept 1993]). "Although special concerns surround a FOIL request for records in an ongoing criminal investigation, defendants are not entitled to a blanket exemption from disclosure absent a showing that the materials requested fall squarely within a statutory exemption. Affidavits that merely parrot the statutory language of the exemption are not sufficient" (id.).

III. DISCUSSION

Petitioner's FOIL Request

Here, the Court has completed an in camera review of the requested documents and agrees with Respondents that the law enforcement exemption generally applies to the subject records. However, the Court also agrees with Petitioner that Respondents have improperly asserted a blanket exemption to the entirety of the records without any effort to redact or segregate portion(s) of the records that would not interfere with an ongoing investigation (see Gould v New York City Police Dept., 89 NY2d 267, 275 [1996]). To this end, the Court notes that Respondents have instead submitted the records to the Court for an in camera review with the apparent expectation that the Court will review and make the necessary redactions, which is not appropriate.

"It would always be easier to simply assert a general objection, then say, 'let the court decide.' This tack would prematurely shift the burden to the court to conduct a comprehensive review to determine which documents are exempt and for what reason. While, this court recognizes that there are circumstances when an in camera review would be appropriate and necessary, this should be the exception, not the rule—the last step in the process, not the first" (Brownell v Grady, 147 Misc 2d 105, 108-09 [Sup Ct Dutchess County 1990]; see also Bhambhani v Westchester County Dist. Attorney's Office, 87 Misc 3d 1244[A], at *7 [Sup Ct Westchester County 2025] ["Respondent's offer to submit the entirety of its digital database to the Court for in camera review appears to be little more than Respondent shirking its own responsibility. The burden of conducting a thorough review of its records rests squarely on Respondent, and it is improper to attempt to put it on the Court's shoulders"]).

However, a determination as to which portions of the requested documents are non-exempt appears unnecessary because, as referenced above, Petitioner has agreed to modify his FOIL request, such that he is now only seeking documents that establish "the date, time, location of the incident, and the specific property stolen." (NYSCEF No. 22, at p. 2; see In re Grabell v NYC Police Dept., 2014 WL 12804910, at *3 [Sup Ct NY County 2014] ["After a conference with the court, by stipulation dated August 26, 2014, petitioner agreed to modify his FOIL requests, addressing some of NYPD's concerns raised during settlement discussions and the court permits such modified FOIL requests"]). In response, Respondents have stated that they are "willing to release the petitioner's December 2025 statement to sheriff's deputies and a list of property allegedly stolen from him in December 2025[.]" (NYSCEF No. 24.) The Court finds that this is acceptable and, indeed, had Respondents objected to this modified request, they have not provided any specific reasons regarding how the release of these two documents would interfere with their investigation. The Petition is therefore granted to the extent that Respondents shall provide Petitioner with unredacted copies of (1) Petitioner's December 2025 statement to the sheriff's deputies who responded to the subject incident, and (2) a list of the property claimed to be stolen during the alleged robbery.

B. Counsel Fees

"In order to create a clear deterrent to unreasonable delays and denials of access and thereby encourage every unit of government to make a good faith effort to comply with the requirements of FOIL, the Legislature has provided for the assessment of an attorney's fee and other litigation costs in FOIL proceedings" (Cook v Nassau County Police Dept., 140 AD3d 1059, 1060 [2d Dept 2016]). "The Public Officers Law authorizes an award of [counsel] fees where the petitioner 'has substantially prevailed' in the FOIL proceeding and the agency either lacked a reasonable basis for denying access to the requested records or 'failed to respond to a request or appeal within the statutory time' " (Madeiros v NYS Educ. Dept., 30 NY3d 67, 78-79 [2017]). "A petitioner substantially prevails under Public Officers Law § 89(4)(c) when it receives all the information that it requested and to which it was entitled in response to the underlying FOIL litigation" (Gannett Satellite Info. Network, LLC v NYS Thruway Auth., 181 AD3d 1072 [3d Dept 2020]).

Here, Petitioner requests $2,500.00 in counsel fees, which is supported by an attorney affirmation substantiating the requested amount. (NYSCEF No. 21.) Petitioner argues that attorney's fees are warranted due to Respondents' improper assertion of a blanket exemption and their failure to articulate any reasons showing how the release of information already known to Petitioner would interfere with a law enforcement investigation. Respondents argue Petitioner has not substantially prevailed in this matter because the Petition requests disclosure of the complete police report of the underlying robbery incident (see, e.g., Saxton v NYS Dept. of Taxation & Finance, 107 AD3d 1104, 1105 [3d Dept 2013] ["having secured the disclosure of only three additional documents out of the 18 sought, petitioners did not substantially prevail"]; Mack v Howard, 91 AD3d 1315, 1317 [4th Dept 2012] ["Even assuming, arguendo, that respondents had 'no reasonable basis' for failing to disclose the videotape, it cannot be said that petitioner 'substantially prevailed' in this proceeding inasmuch as he established his entitlement to only one of the numerous videotapes requested in the petition"]).

In Madeiros, supra, the Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division when it concluded that petitioner was not entitled to attorney's fees because petitioner did not substantially prevail when the "majority of the Department's challenged redactions were appropriate" (Madeiros, 30 NY3d at 79.) The Court of Appeals held that this analysis "fails to take into account that the Department made no disclosures, redacted or otherwise, prior to petitioner's commencement of this CPLR article 78 proceeding. Although the Department's redactions in the eventually-released records have been upheld, petitioner's legal action ultimately succeeded in obtaining substantial unredacted post-commencement disclosure responsive to her FOIL request" (id.)

Similarly, in the instant matter, Respondents seemingly made no effort to review and provide redacted and/or non-exempt portions of the subject records in response to Petitioner's FOIL request. While Petitioner is receiving only two documents from a 60-page file, he is receiving the information he originally needed to satisfy his insurance claim, and which should have been provided after agency review. Had that happened, this article 78 proceeding may have been avoided.

ACCORDINGLY, it is

ORDERED, that the Petition is GRANTED in part and Respondents must provide Petitioner with (1) Petitioner's December 2025 statement to the sheriff's deputies who responded to the robbery incident on December 18, 2025, and (2) a list of the property claimed to be stolen during the alleged robbery, without limitation, redaction or other exemption, within twenty (20) days following service of this Decision and Order with notice of entry; and it is further

ORDERED, that Petitioner's request for attorney's fees is GRANTED; and it is further

ORDERED, that the County of Onondaga shall pay directly to Petitioner's counsel the amount of two thousand, five hundred dollars ($2,500.00), which constitutes the attorney's fees and costs reasonably incurred during this proceeding, within thirty (30) days following service of this Decision and Order with notice of entry.

This shall constitute the Decision and Order of the Court. The signing of this Decision and Order shall not constitute entry or filing under CPLR § 2220.

ENTER,

Dated: September 25, 2026

HON. KEVIN P. KUEHNER, J.S.C.

Kevin P. Kuehner, J.