Matter of Kivisto v NYC Human Resources Admin.

Matter of Matter of Kivisto v NYC Human Resources Admin. 2012 NY Slip Op 01139 Decided on February 14, 2012 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on February 14, 2012
Tom, J.P., Andrias, Catterson, Richter, Abdus-Salaam, JJ.
6820 104982/10

[*1]In re Jussi K. Kivisto, Petitioner-Appellant,

v

NYC Human Resources Administration, et al., Respondents-Respondents.




Jussi K. Kivisto, appellant pro se.
Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Marta
Ross of counsel), for respondents.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Saliann Scarpulla, J.), entered October 7, 2010, denying a petition seeking to, among other things, annul the determination of respondent New York City Human Resources Administration (HRA), dated December 18, 2009, which denied petitioner's Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) request for certain documents concerning Medicaid payments made on behalf of a deceased public assistance recipient, and dismissing the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

HRA's determination denying petitioner's FOIL request was not affected by an error of law (see Mulgrew v Board of Educ. of the City School Dist. of the City of N.Y., 87 AD3d 506, 507 [2011]). Indeed, the agency demonstrated that the requested documents are confidential and exempt from disclosure by Social Services Law §§ 136, 367-b(4) and 369(4) (see Public Officers Law §§ 87[2][a], 89[5][e]; see Matter of Rabinowitz v Hammons, 228 AD2d 369, 369-370 [1996], lv denied 89 NY2d 802 [1996]). Petitioner's argument that the confidentiality of the information did not survive the deceased's death is unavailing. Given the foregoing determination, we need not decide whether the requested documents are exempt from disclosure under Public Officers Law § 87(2)(b), an argument that was never raised below. [*2]

We have reviewed petitioner's remaining contentions, including that any privacy interest has been waived by public disclosure, and find them unavailing.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: FEBRUARY 14, 2012

CLERK