U.S. Issues Court: NYTimes's Request for New York City Gun Owners Violates Law

**petegz28** · 02-05-2013, 12:26 PM

Court: NYTimes's Request for New York City Gun Owners Violates Law

As did the previous release of a list of gun owners.

A New York appellate court has ruled that the New York Times's request for a list of gun owners in New York City, under the Freedom of Information Law, violates the state's statute. The ruling overturns in part a lower court's ruling.

"Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Jane S. Solomon, J.), entered November 1, 2011, granting the petition to the extent it sought an order directing respondent, under the Freedom of Information Law (Public Officers Law § 84 et seq.) (FOIL), to provide an electronic copy of a database, as redacted, of names and addresses of New York City residents who have been granted handgun licenses, and a database, to be redacted, of hate crimes reported to respondent from January 1, 2005 to the present, and denying the petition to the extent it sought an order directing respondent to provide an electronic copy of its crime incident database, a declaration that respondent's practices in responding to FOIL requests violate the statute, and an order directing respondent to cease these practices, unanimously modified, on the law, to deny the petition as to the databases of handgun licensees and hate crimes and to reinstate the petition with respect to the demand for the crime incident database, insofar as it seeks production of the electronic crime incident database produced in Floyd v City of New York (08 Civ 01034 [SAS] [US Dist Ct, SD NY]) (the Floyd database), and the matter remitted to Supreme Court for a determination of whether production of the Floyd database should be ordered, and, if so, to what extent and under what conditions, and otherwise affirmed, without costs," reads the ruling.

"The court correctly declined to declare that respondent's responses to FOIL requests and rulings on administrative appeals are as a matter of practice untimely and to order respondent to cease this practice. The FOIL requester's statutory remedy for an untimely response or ruling is to deem the response a denial and commence a CPLR article 78 proceeding "for review of such denial" (Public Officers Law § 89[4][a],[b]; Matter of Miller v New York State Dept. of Transp., 58 AD3d 981, 983 [3d Dept 2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 712 [2009]). Review of a FOIL determination does not provide for mandamus relief (see Matter of Harvey v Hynes, 174 Misc 2d 174, 177 [Sup Ct, Kings County 1997])."

The appellate court rules that a lower court erred by ordering the release of "the home addresses of handgun licensees in electronic form." "The court erred in ordering respondent to release the home addresses of handgun licensees in electronic form. The fact that Penal Law § 400.00(5) makes the name and address of a handgun license holder "a public record" is not dispositive of whether respondent can assert the privacy and safety exemptions to FOIL disclosure, especially when petitioners seek the names and addresses in electronic form (see Matter of New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v Kelly, 55 AD3d 222, 226 [1st Dept 2008]). In addition, "[d]isclosing a person's home address implicates a heightened privacy concern" (Matter of New York State United Teachers v Brighter Choice Charter School, 64 AD3d 1130, 1132 [3d Dept 2009], citing, inter alia, Public Officers Law § 89[7], revd on other grounds 15 NY3d 560 [2010])."

The ruling adds, "However, the Floyd database was produced in an unrelated federal action, governed by very different standards from those that govern public access to records under FOIL (see Svaigsen v City of New York, 203 AD2d 32 [1st Dept 1994]). Further, the database was produced pursuant to strict confidentiality requirements, which indicates that disclosure to the [*4]general public would, at a minimum, raise serious confidentiality and privacy concerns. Accordingly, we remand to Supreme Court to determine whether the Floyd database should be released, and if so, under what conditions."

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/...aw_700264.html

Direckshun · 02-05-2013, 12:29 PM

InChiefsHell · 02-05-2013, 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Your point is...

La literatura · 02-05-2013, 12:36 PM

I don't think it's accurate to say that a request by itself is breaking a law. Perhaps granting the request is by going beyond the legal parameters of the law.

Anyway, I know it's not your thread title, pete, because you simply copy and paste without doing a lick of actual thinking for yourself, but it seems misleading. The N.Y. Times didn't break the law.

cosmo20002 · 02-05-2013, 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Love this feature.

cosmo20002 · 02-05-2013, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by La literatura

I don't think it's accurate to say that a request by itself is breaking a law. Perhaps granting the request is by going beyond the legal parameters of the law.

Anyway, I know it's not your thread title, pete, because you simply copy and paste without doing a lick of actual thinking for yourself, but it seems misleading. The N.Y. Times didn't break the law.

Remember, he's not agreeing with it or indicating he thinks it is true or anything. It is posted only for discussion.

This is actually pretty mild compared to the usual, but I'm sure a real doozy will show up fairly soon.

Garcia Bronco · 02-05-2013, 01:05 PM

Publishing the information was indeed a potential violation of law and it is a civil matter. They literally created a massive security problem for all citizens and police. It was dumb and irresponsible.

**petegz28** · 02-05-2013, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Garcia Bronco

Publishing the information was indeed a potential violation of law and it is a civil matter. They literally created a massive security problem for all citizens and police. It was dumb and irresponsible.

I think discussion has been hi-jacked to Drudge and what not.....

Direckshun · 02-05-2013, 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by petegz28

I think discussion has been hi-jacked to Drudge and what not.....

It totally has been.

Tell me.

When you're on Drudge, a Republican filter site, and you're directly linked to Daily Caller, a site run by Tucker Carlson...

...are you like "this is totally reliable information"?

Or are you like "JUST GIVE ME SOMETHING I CAN USE" as you wipe the foam from your slacken maw.

Garcia Bronco · 02-05-2013, 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Direckshun

It totally has been.

Tell me.

When you're on Drudge, a Republican filter site, and you're directly linked to Daily Caller, a site run by Tucker Carlson...

...are you like "this is totally reliable information"?

Or are you like "JUST GIVE ME SOMETHING I CAN USE" as you wipe the foam from your slacken maw.

I've seen you make this argument frequently, however the factual information (separating from the op-ed) is typically correct, or quoted from another source. So I guess I don't understand what you're complaining about. All news is slanted. That's why if you're smart, you get your information from a number of sources.

Now this is particularly ironic given the threads you start with the same "unreliable" information. In fact, you're more of a parrot of information yourself than anyone.

**petegz28** · 02-05-2013, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Direckshun

It totally has been.

Tell me.

When you're on Drudge, a Republican filter site, and you're directly linked to Daily Caller, a site run by Tucker Carlson...

...are you like "this is totally reliable information"?

Or are you like "JUST GIVE ME SOMETHING I CAN USE" as you wipe the foam from your slacken maw.

funny considering the several of your last threads that you started were stories that were on Drudge....

Direckshun · 02-05-2013, 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Garcia Bronco

So I guess I don't understand what you're complaining about.

Fortunately, you answered your own question.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Garcia Bronco

That's why if you're smart, you get your information from a number of sources.

alpha_omega · 02-05-2013, 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Your continued use of MS Paint (or whatever you use to draw the red circles) is absolutely amazing!

It must have taken many years to perfect your skills.

Carry on grasshopper.

Garcia Bronco · 02-05-2013, 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Fortunately, you answered your own question.

I still need you to explain your argument. Are you saying pete only gets his news from Drudge?

Radar Chief · 02-05-2013, 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by InChiefsHell

Your point is...

Atop his knobby head.

02-05-2013, 12:26 PM
petegz28 Supporter Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Olathe, Ks Casino cash: $208929	Court: NYTimes's Request for New York City Gun Owners Violates Law Court: NYTimes's Request for New York City Gun Owners Violates Law As did the previous release of a list of gun owners. A New York appellate court has ruled that the New York Times's request for a list of gun owners in New York City, under the Freedom of Information Law, violates the state's statute. The ruling overturns in part a lower court's ruling. "Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Jane S. Solomon, J.), entered November 1, 2011, granting the petition to the extent it sought an order directing respondent, under the Freedom of Information Law (Public Officers Law § 84 et seq.) (FOIL), to provide an electronic copy of a database, as redacted, of names and addresses of New York City residents who have been granted handgun licenses, and a database, to be redacted, of hate crimes reported to respondent from January 1, 2005 to the present, and denying the petition to the extent it sought an order directing respondent to provide an electronic copy of its crime incident database, a declaration that respondent's practices in responding to FOIL requests violate the statute, and an order directing respondent to cease these practices, unanimously modified, on the law, to deny the petition as to the databases of handgun licensees and hate crimes and to reinstate the petition with respect to the demand for the crime incident database, insofar as it seeks production of the electronic crime incident database produced in Floyd v City of New York (08 Civ 01034 [SAS] [US Dist Ct, SD NY]) (the Floyd database), and the matter remitted to Supreme Court for a determination of whether production of the Floyd database should be ordered, and, if so, to what extent and under what conditions, and otherwise affirmed, without costs," reads the ruling. "The court correctly declined to declare that respondent's responses to FOIL requests and rulings on administrative appeals are as a matter of practice untimely and to order respondent to cease this practice. The FOIL requester's statutory remedy for an untimely response or ruling is to deem the response a denial and commence a CPLR article 78 proceeding "for review of such denial" (Public Officers Law § 89[4][a],[b]; Matter of Miller v New York State Dept. of Transp., 58 AD3d 981, 983 [3d Dept 2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 712 [2009]). Review of a FOIL determination does not provide for mandamus relief (see Matter of Harvey v Hynes, 174 Misc 2d 174, 177 [Sup Ct, Kings County 1997])." The appellate court rules that a lower court erred by ordering the release of "the home addresses of handgun licensees in electronic form." "The court erred in ordering respondent to release the home addresses of handgun licensees in electronic form. The fact that Penal Law § 400.00(5) makes the name and address of a handgun license holder "a public record" is not dispositive of whether respondent can assert the privacy and safety exemptions to FOIL disclosure, especially when petitioners seek the names and addresses in electronic form (see Matter of New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v Kelly, 55 AD3d 222, 226 [1st Dept 2008]). In addition, "[d]isclosing a person's home address implicates a heightened privacy concern" (Matter of New York State United Teachers v Brighter Choice Charter School, 64 AD3d 1130, 1132 [3d Dept 2009], citing, inter alia, Public Officers Law § 89[7], revd on other grounds 15 NY3d 560 [2010])." The ruling adds, "However, the Floyd database was produced in an unrelated federal action, governed by very different standards from those that govern public access to records under FOIL (see Svaigsen v City of New York, 203 AD2d 32 [1st Dept 1994]). Further, the database was produced pursuant to strict confidentiality requirements, which indicates that disclosure to the [*4]general public would, at a minimum, raise serious confidentiality and privacy concerns. Accordingly, we remand to Supreme Court to determine whether the Floyd database should be released, and if so, under what conditions." http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/...aw_700264.html
Posts: 56,838

02-05-2013, 12:29 PM	#2
Direckshun Black for Palestine Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Springpatch Casino cash: $1166715	__________________
Posts: 37,514

02-05-2013, 12:36 PM	#4
La literatura MVP Join Date: Nov 2011 Casino cash: $50809	I don't think it's accurate to say that a request by itself is breaking a law. Perhaps granting the request is by going beyond the legal parameters of the law. Anyway, I know it's not your thread title, pete, because you simply copy and paste without doing a lick of actual thinking for yourself, but it seems misleading. The N.Y. Times didn't break the law.
Posts: 7,171

02-05-2013, 01:05 PM	#7
Garcia Bronco No Keys, No Problem Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Denver Casino cash: $59568	Publishing the information was indeed a potential violation of law and it is a civil matter. They literally created a massive security problem for all citizens and police. It was dumb and irresponsible.
Posts: 20,359

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode