Empire Ctr. for NYS Policy v NYC Police Pension Fund
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Empire Ctr. for NYS Policy v NYC Police Pension Fund 2010 NY Slip Op 34068(U) December 6, 2010 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 105839/2010 Judge: Carol E. Huff Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [* 1] -...... SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK - NEW YORK COUNTY PRESENT: CAROL E .. HUFF PART Just/cs Index Number: 105839/2010 INDEX NO. EMPIRE CENTER FOR NYS POLICY vs. MOTION DATE MOTION SEQ. NO. NYC POLICE PENSION FUND MOTION CAL. NO. SEQUENCE NUMBER : 001 ARTICLE 78 chis motion t o / f o r - - - - - - PAPERS NUMBERED Notice of Motion/ Order to Show (.;ause - Amoavn:s - exhibits ... .. -z- Answering Affidavits - Exhibits - - - - - - - - - - - - - en Cross-Motion: a: Upon the foregoing papers, It Is ordered that this motion en 0 ~ c,, Replylng Affidavits---~-------~----- D Yes No Z 2~ t: 0 LU "'" ::::> ...J ...J I- LU ..., 0 0 LL Q :c w l- ~ LL a: a: a: 0 LU a: > ...J ...J ::::> LL. ~l'l. fa a: ~ /) LU en ct 2 z Dated: _ _ _ _ DE_c_o_s_20_10_ __ 0 t= :! 0 Check one: ~FINAL DISPOSITION Check if appropriate: 0 CAR£e. HJJ.Ff 0 DO NOT POST SUBMIT ORDER/ JUDG. 0 NON-FINAL DISPOSITION D REFERENCE SETTLE ORDER/ JUDG. [* 2] SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK: PART 32 ------------------------------------------------------------------------x THE EMPIRE CENTER FOR NEW YORK STATE POLICY, A Project of the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, Inc., Index No. 105839/10 Petitioner, - against NEW YORK CJTY POLICE PENSION FUND, l'llllJudllMnt ~Nf_.!!J~L Counlr Clerk ....... d.-.try camot IM H!'Ved baMd ...... To Respl~M\~. COUMd9f or fluttv.ntzl!d ~ntllf:lw ftlUlt ~ In ptl"IOn at ttto J11dgmant CleriOt Deak CR~ ------------------------------------------------------------------------x CAROLE. HUFF, J.: In this Article 78 proceeding, petitioner seeks an order directing full compliance with its Freedom of Information Law request, made pursuant to Public Officers Law§ 89(4)(b), for infonnation in connection with all retired members of respondent, the New York City Police Pension Fund (that is, all retired New York City police officers receiving a pension). By letter dated January 22, 2010, petitioner sought the following information for each retiree: name; retirement system registration number; last employer; gross retirement benefits for calendar years 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009; indication of which system the retiree belongs to; retirement date; and date of commencement of retirement system membership. The Pension Fund provided all of the information in its possession (it contends there is no "retirement system registration number") except for the names of the retirees. Petitioner appealed the decision not to provide the names, and the appeal was denied in a letter dated April 1, 2010, on the grounds that POL § 89(7) exempts the names of beneficiaries of public [* 3] employees' retirement systems, and that the disclosure of the names would endanger the retirees, who are former police officers. Respondent first contends that petitioner lacks standing as a self-described "project," but petitioner does have standing as a non-profit corporation organized and existing under the laws of New York. Respondent also contends that petitioner is barred by the four-month statute of limitations pertaining to Article 78 proceedings (CPLR 217[ I]), arguing that its 2010 request is merely duplicative of its 2009 request. However, petitioner's seeking an additional year's information in its 20 I 0 request is sufficient to establish a that it is non-duplicative. Public Officers Law § 84 is a Legislative declaration that the public "should have access to the records of government in accordance with the provisions of this article." Such access is not unrestricted. For example, POL § 87 provides that agencies may deny access where the infom1ation would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy ( § 87 [2] [b]) or could endanger the life or safety of any person(§ 87[2][b]). POL § 89(7) further provides that the name and address of a "beneficiary" of a public employees' retirement system should not be disclosed. In New York Veteran Police Assn. v New York City Police Dept. Article I Pension Fund, 61NY2d659, 660 (1983), the Court of Appeals found that this provision applies to "all retirees of the New York City Police Department currently receiving pensions and annuities." In addition, the argument that§ 87(2)(b) applies is persuasive (endangering of life or safety). Considering the ease with which internet searches using only a name can identify the address associated with it, and the common perception that retired police officers possess ftrea1111s, the possibility of such retirees becoming the target of burglaries is significant. -2- [* 4] Accordingly, it is ADJUDGED that the pet1t1on . . . is . denied and tlie proceeding is dismissed. Dated: DEC 0 6 2010 e:: CARO~. HUFF J.S.C. -3-
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.
