Matter of Mingo v Vance

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Matter of Mingo v Vance 2013 NY Slip Op 33231(U) December 13, 2013 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 401319/13 Judge: Joan B. Lobis Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various state and local government websites. These include the New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts Service, and the Bronx County Clerk's office. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [* 1] NEW YORK COUNTY SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK / PART PRESENT: ' Justice fc) INDEX NO. MOTION DATE ¢v. cs+r l'ct,.. ,~f+o~~ ¬!'f Of 0 AJ~ MOTION SEQ. NO. lcuV\ ~ 'f York MOTION CAL. NO. / The following papers, numbered 1 to _ _ were read on this motion to/for _ _ _ _ _ __ / - - - - .......... ""-.. Notice of -~~··~-- ....... , PAPERS NUMBERED Motion/~~~~ Affidavits i--3 Exhibits ... Exhibits ------------~ e -n Answering Affidavits en <( Cross-Motion: a: Upon the foregoing papers, it is ordered that this motion Replying A f f i d a v i t s - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2 0 0 0 Yes No Fl LED w (.!) W2 ~~ en _, (.) '":°:'. ',"'rt(' n. 1:1. t" -... ¢ -; ~·'· ¢ "" f ·-~, :-:. f: .--~ ~ ~ ; i'"':. "r.: "~ :~ . ............ ¢ . .· .... , ¢ ' ,..., ¢. · . ¢. . 1. P. I~ ~~ I ¢r DEC 19 2013 , ~ &;, - ........ NEWYORK CO~ CLERK'S OFFICE :::> _, '"") 0 0 LL I- w c :c: w l- a: a: a: 0 ~ u.. w a: >..... ....I :::> LL.. 1(.) w a.. en w a: en w en <( (.) 2 0 l- o Dated: _ _ _·_la.__,_(--"-3-r-j;_-=o_._ · a: Check one: ~FINAL DISPOSITION Check if appropriate: 0 DO NOT POST JOAN~ J.S.C. NON-FINAL DISPOSITION 0 REFERENCE [* 2] SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY: IAS PART 6 -------------------------------------------------------------------------)( In the Matter of the Application of GREGORY MINGO, Petitioner, Index No. 401319/13 -againstDecision and Order CYRUS R. VANCE, JR., District Attorney of New York County, Respondent. -------------------------------------------------------------------------)( JOAN B. LORIS, J.S.C.: Petitioner, Gregory Mingo, proceeding pro se, and who is currently incarcerated at Great Meadow Correctional Facility in Comstock, New York, commenced this Article 78 proceeding to compel Respondent, the District Attorney of New York County, to provide Petitioner with certain records pursuant to the provisions of the Freedom of Information Law ("FOIL"). N.Y. Public Officers Law denied. §Ii ls),.. J;tl:Jollowi~ reasons, the petition~~/ , ; / DEC 19 2013 NE.W YORK fAte COUNTY et,ERK'S o Petitioner filed a FOIL request dated October 2, 2012, seeking to obtain "any and_· all letters received by the New York County District Attorney's Office to the Queens County District Attorney's Office" and "any and all letters received by the New York County District Attorney's Office from the Queens County District Attorney's Office[,]" regarding the indictment of another individual, a witness for the prosecution during Mr. Mingo's homicide trial. Additionally, Petitioner requests "any and all letters of recommendation sent [sic] to the 1 [* 3] New York State Division of Parole, on behalf of' the witness. On October 23, 2012, Assistant District Attorney Eva Marie Dowdell, a Records Access Officer ("RAO"), denied Petitioner's request relying on Public Officers Law Section 87(2)(a) and New York Codes, Rules and Regulations Section 270.2(14)(xvii), a regulation prohibiting petitioner's solicitation of documents containing crime and sentence information pertaining to another inmate who is not a codefendant. By letter dated November 17, 2012, Petitioner appealed the determination as Petitioner was not requesting crime and sentence information for an inmate. Appeals Officer Susan Roque denied Petitioner's administrative appeal on January 22, 2013. AO Roque found that RAO Dowdell's reliance on New York Codes, Rules and Regulations Section 270.2(14)(xvii) was incorrect but that the three categories of documents Petitioner requested were nonetheless exempt from disclosure as inter-agency materials under Public Officers Law Section 87(2)(g). On May 21, 2013, Petitioner commenced this Article 78 proceeding. In an Article 78 proceeding, the Court reviews agency decisions to determine whether an action violates lawful procedures, is arbitrary or capricious, or is affected by an error oflaw. E.g., Pell v. Bd. of Educ., 34 N.Y.2d 222, 231 (1974); Roberts v. Gavin, 96 A.D.3d 669, 671 (1st Dep't 2012). The agency withholding disclosure bears the burden of proving the exception applies. Mulgrew v. Bd. of Educ .. 87 A.D.3d 506, 507 (1st Dep't 2011). Where an issue is limited to "pure statutory interpretation," a court is not required to defer to an administrative agency but rather should consider the plain language of the statute. E.g., Dunne v. 2 [* 4] Kelly, 95 A.D.3d 563, 564 (1st Dep't 2013); see also County of Westchester v. Bd. of Trustees, 9 N.Y.3d 833, 835-36 (2007) (administrative agency's regulations must not conflict with state statute or that statute's underlying purposes). Under FOIL, "government records are 'presumptively open,' statutory exemptions are 'narrowly construed,' and the City must articulate a 'particularized and specific justification' for nondisclosure." N.Y. Civ. Liberties Union v. Schenectady, 2 N.Y.3d 657, 661 (2004) (citing Gould v. N.Y. City Police Dep't, 89 N.Y.2d 267, 274 (1996)). The agency seeking to prevent disclosure has the burden to establish the applicability of an exemption. Gould, 89 N.Y.2d at 275 (citing Hanig v. Dep't of Motor Vehicles, 79 N.Y.2d 106, 109 (1992)). Withholding disclosure requires that "the material requested falls squarely within the ambit of one of these statutory exemptions." Gould, 89 N.Y.2d. at 275 (citing Fink v. Lefkowitz, 47 N.Y.2d 567, 571 (1979)). Public Officers Law Section 87(2)(g) exempts from disclosure any inter-agency or intra-agency materials that are not statistical or factual tabulations or data, instructions to staff that affect the public, final agency policy or determinations, or external audits, including but not limited to audits performed by the comptroller and the federal government. New York courts have interpreted "inter-agency materials" to mean '"deliberative material,' i.e., communications exchanged for discussion purposes not constituting final policy decisions." Russo v. Nassau Cnty. Cmty. Coll., 81N.Y.2d690, 699 (1993). All of Petitioner's requested documents are pre-decisional inter-agency documents 3 [* 5] that are exempt from disclosure by Public Officers Law Section 87(2)(g). Correspondence between the New York County District Attorney's Office and Queens District Attorney's Office falls squarely within the Section 87 (2)(g) exemption. Recommendation letters sent by a prosecuting district attorney setting forth factors to consider in parole are also inter-agency documents that fall squarely within the exception. Grigger v. Div. of Parole, 11 A.D.3d 850 (3d Dep't 2004). Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the petition is denied and dismissed in its entirety. Dated: December 13 , 2013 FILED DEC 19 2013 ENTER: IY'Va.,!!EWYORK ~ ¢ r Cl.ERk'8 OFFIC@ - JOAN B. LOBIS, J.S.C. 4

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.