Matter of Visiting Nurse Serv. of NY Home Care v New York State Dept. of Health

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Matter of Visiting Nurse Serv. of NY Home Care v New York State Dept. of Health 2012 NY Slip Op 32975(U) November 28, 2012 Sup Ct, Albany County Docket Number: 1689-12 Judge: George B. Ceresia Jr Republished from New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts Service. Search E-Courts (http://www.nycourts.gov/ecourts) for any additional information on this case. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [* 1] STATE OF NEW YORK SUPREME COURT - COUNTY OF ALBANY Zn the Matter of the Application of VISITING NURSE SERVICE OF NEW YORK HOME CARE, Petitioner, For a Judgment Pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules, -against- MEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH; NJIUV R. SHAH,MmD. M.P.H., in his official capacity as Commissioner of the New York State Department of Healfi, ROBERT LOCICERO, i his official capacity as Records n Access Officer, New York State Department of Health; and JONATHAN KARMEL, i his official capacity as Records n Access Appeals Officer, New York State Department of Health, Respondents. F I _ Supreme Court Albany County Article 78 Tern Hon. George E, Ceresia, Jr., Supreme Court Justice Presiding RJINo. 01-12-ST3519Index&. 1689-12 Appearances: Garfunkel Wild, PC Attorneys for Petitioner (Peter M. Hofhan, Esq., of Counsel) 11 Great Neck Road Great Neck, New York 11021 Manatt Phelps & Phillips, LLP Attorneys for Petitioner (James W. Lytle, Esq., of Counsel) 30 South Pearl Street, 12thFloor Albany, New York 12207 [* 2] Hon. Eric T. Scfineideman Attorney General State of New York Attorney for Respondents (William 5. McCarthy, Assistant Attorney General, of Counsel) Department of Law The Capitol Albany, New York 12224 DECISION/ORDER George B.Ceresia, Jr., Justice Petitioner Visiting Nurse Service ofNew York Home Care challenges respondents denid pursuant to the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) of some of the records petitioner requested and seeks both copies of the records and attorneys fees. Petitioner, it home health agenq that provides sewices to Medicaid beneficiaries, was the subject of an audit by the New York State Office of the Medicaid Inspector General ( OMIG), an independent office within respondent New York State Department of Health. On April 19,201 I, petitioner s counsel submitted a six-page letter to OMIG stating that petitioner intends to challenge the sample OMIG used in its audit. Petitioner requested that OMIG provide petitioner with information and documents. The requested material was described in a complexly detaiied list of 20 types of information and documentation. 2 [* 3] O M G does not answer discoverydemands as p a t of the audit process and respondent treated petitioner s April 19, 20 11 correspondence as a FOIL request. On May 2,201 1, respondent acknowledged petitioner s request. By correspondence dated May 26, 202 1, respondent advised petitioner that respondent needed an additional twenty days to respond. On June 13, 201 I, respondent provided petitioner s counsel with documents in response to petitioner s request. These included two documents containing explanations of OMIG s sampling process and supglementedthe copy of OMIG s random sample generating computer program, which constitutes OMG s sampling methodology and had previously been sent to petitioner. On July 6, 201 1, petitioner filed a eight-page letter appealing n respondent s alleged denial of access and treated all twenty of its types of records, documents and information as having been denied. On July 18, 2011, respondent supplemented its response to petitioner s request by providing petitioner with a copy of the database containing the universe of petitioner s own c l h fiom which OMIG made its sample using the previously supplied sample generating computer program. OBAugust I 1,20 11, respondent provided a further set of supplemental ~spottsesin which it responded to the items contained i petitioner s April 19, 201 I n correspondence by asserting that OMIG did not have records that met most of petitioners requests, releasing some documents, and explaining that the remaining documents were exempt from disdosure pursuant to FOIL. Petitioner submitted a revised FOIL appeal on 3 [* 4] September 7,201 1 and on September 20,201 1 respondent made its find determination determining that the withheld documents are exempt h m disclosure. FOIL, which is codified in Public Officers Law at Article 6, was enactedto foster the public s inherent right to know the workings of government by shedding light on government decision making (Matter of Encore Coll. Bookstores v Auxiliary Serv. Corp. of State Univ. of N.Y. at Farmindale, 87NY2d 4 10,416 [19951; Matter of Fink v Lefkowitz, 47 NY2d 567,57 1 [19791). The act permits the electorate to have sufficient infomation in order to make intelligent, informed choices with respect to both the direction and scope of govemental activities, which i turnboth permits the electorate to make informed choices n regarding governmental activities and facilitates exposure of waste, negligence, and abuse (see, Public Officers Law 5 84; Matter of Encore Coll. Bookstores v Auxiliary Serv. C o q . of State Univ. of N.Y.at Farminadale, 87 NY2d 410, 416 [1995]; Matter of Fink Y Leikowitz, 47 W 2 d 567,57 1 [19793; Matter of Tartan Oil Corp.v Stateof New York Dept., of Taxation & Fin., 239 AD2d %,38 [3d Dept., 19981). Judicious use of the provisions of the law can be a rerharkably effective device i holding the governors accountabIe to the n governed matter of Fink v Le ¬kowitz,47 NY2d 567,571 119791). Under FOE, PBcOrds in the possession of a public agency are presumedto be available for public inspection and copying unless they fall withh one of the specific exceptions established i Public Oficers Law 87(2) (Matter of Markowitz v Serio, 11NY3d 43,504I n [2008]; Matter of Gould v New York City Police Department, 89 NY2d 267,274 [I996]; 4 [* 5] Matter of Encore ColL Bookstores v Auxiliarv Sew. Cow. of State Univ. of N at Y Farmhmlale, 87 NY2d 4 10,4 17-418 [ 19951; Matter of Capital NewsDapers Div. of Hemt COT. v Burns, 67 NY2d 562,566 119861; Matter o f Troy Sand and Gravel Co. Inc. v New York State Dept.. of Tramp, 277 AD2d 782, 784 [3d Dept., 20001) or another statute establishes a clear legislative intent to establish and preserve confidentiatity of the records (Matter of Capital Newspapers Div. v Burns, 67 NY2d 562, 567 [19861; Matter of M. Fasbman v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 62 NY2d 75,8 1 119841; Matter of Collins v New York State Div. of Parole, 251 AD2d 738,738 [3d Dept., 19981;Matter of Wm. J. Kline & Sons Inc. v County ofHamilton, 235 AD2d 44,46 [3d Dept., 19971). FOIL is to be liberally construed in favor of the public and its exemptions narrowly interpreted to effectuate maximum public access to government recards (Matter of Washindon Post Co. v New York State I-ns. DeDt., 61 NY2d 557 119841; Matter of Fink v Lefkowitz, 47 NY2d 567, 571 [1979]). That burden is not m t by an agency s simply invoking an exemption e without articulating a $particularized and specific justification for non-disclosure (Matter of Markowitz v Serio, 11 NY3d 43,50-51 [2008]; Matter of GouId v New Yo& City Police Department, 89 NY2d 267,275 [ 19961); Matter of New York Times Co. v New York State Dept.. ofHealth, 243 AD2d 157 [3dDept., 19931; Matter of Johnsonv New York City Police Dept., 257 AD2d 343 [1st Dept., 19991) and also demonstrating the applicability of aspecific statutory exemption (-Matter of Daily Gazette Co. v Ci?y of Schenectady, 93 NY2d 145 5 [* 6] [1999]; Matter of M. Farbman Bt Sons, Inc. v New York Citv Health & HosDs. Corp., 62 NY2d 75 [ 19841). Petitioner claims that the Court is obliged to order release of the documents because respondent allegedly failed to sufficiently identify the documents and contents of the documents that were withheld and to provide a particularized and specific justification for withholding them. Respondent was not obliged at the administrative level to provide sufficient information regardingthe contents of each of documents to allow petitioner to the h o w what the documents contained and/or determine for itself whether or not respondent s determination is reasonable. FOIL does not require agencies eit?mat the administrative level or in the course of Article 78 proceedings to reveal so much detail about the documents contents that they are withholding as to effectivdy release the documents. In camera inspection of documents is the means by which such issues are properly resolved (Matter of Bass Pro. Inc v Megna, 69 AD3d 1040,1041 [3d Dept.,20101; Matter of Miller v New York State Dept. of Transp., 58 AD3d 981,983-984 [3d Dept., 20091). Respondent was dso not obliged at the administrative level to articulate a particularized and specific justification for denying access to each of the records and demonstratethe applicability o f ~FOIL exemption. At the administrative level, the agency e is only required to provide a written description of the withheld documents and the rqsons for denying access to a record x h 69 AD3d 1040,1041 [3d Dept., 20101; Matter of Miller v New York State Dept. of Transp, 58 AD3d 981,982 [3d 6 [* 7] Dept., 20091;Matter of K a u h a n v New York State De@. ofEnvtl. ConservationS AD2d 289 826,827 [3d Dept., 20011; see Public Officers Law 0 89[4][a]). Respondent met that burden in this case by generally describing the documents that were being denied and identifying the statutory basis for respondent s denial. It is in the Article 78 proceeding that the agency must demonstrate that the withheld material falls squarely within a FOIL exemption by articulating a particularized and specific justification for denying access (Matter of Markowitz v Serio, 1I NY3d 43,SO-51 [2008]; Matter of Data Tree. LLC v Romaine, 9 NY3d 454,462-463 [2007]). Agencies may meet their burden of doing so by submitting the documents in question for 1 , 6 camera inspection 9 AD3d 1040, 1041 [3d Dept., 20101; Matter of Miller v New York State Dept. of Transp., 58 AD3d 981,982 [3d Dept., 20091). Turning to the first group of records that respondent withheld, respondent has submitted for i camera inspection records that were withheld based upon respondent s n a s s d o n that they are intra-agency materials that contain no information that must be released and are therefore exempt pursuant to Public Officers Law 8 87(2)(g). The intraagency and inter-agency exemption broadly exempts all intra-agency and inter-agency predecisional rnateriaIs from disclosure utlless the material or portions of the material falls within one of four specific types of excepted information: statistical or factual tabulations or data, instructionsto 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 7 [* 8] federal government (Public Officers Law 5 87(2)(g)(i) through (iv); Tuck-It-Awav Associates. L.P. v Empire State Develozlment Corp., 54 AD3d 154, 166 [lst Dept., 20081; Matter ofMorgan v New York State Dept.. of E n d . Conservation, 9 AD3d 586,587 13d Dept., 20041; Matter of David v Lewisohn, 142 AD2d 305,307 [3d Dept., 19881; Matter of Dunlea v Goldmark, 54 AD2d 446,448 [3d Dept., 19761, affd 43 NY2d 754 [1977]). The Court does not agree with petitioner s claim that the records of communications between respondent s employees must be released unless respondent demonstratesthat each communicationwas deliberative. Although ink-agencyor ha-agencymaterials is not specifically defined under FOIL, records o f communications among agency employees are not presumptively available to the public. The purpose of FOK s intra-agency exemption is to fosterthe open exchange of ideas by permittingpublic employeesto exchange opinions, advice and criticism freely and fisl.nkly, without the chilling prospect of public disclosure (The New York Times Co. v City of N Y Fire Dept., 4 NY3d 477, 487 [ZOOS]). Cornmication is routinely conducted using methods such as e-maif messages and attachments, voicemails, text messages, and recorded conversations, alI of which capture the actual communication. Even phone calls generate a record that the conversation took place. Everyday communications between agency employees consist of much more t a just hn deliberative exchanges, thus most communications would fall outside the intra and inter- agenq exemption pursuant to petitioner s interpretation. By giving every member of the public the equivalent of subpoena power to scrutinize nearly all records of communication 8 [* 9] among agency employees, petitioner s interpretation turns FOIL S intra and inkr-agency exemption on its head and subverts the statutory purpose of promoting communications within and between agencies. In recent years, the courts have clearly established that agencies are not obliged to demonstrate that particular records are deIiberative in order to assert the intra and interagency exemption. FOIL S intra and inter-agency exemption is not limited solely to deIiberative material or lengthy or profound policy discussions but also exempts suggestions and criticisms offered with little chance for reflection in moments of crisis T (& New York Times Co. v City of NY Fire De@, 4 W 3 d 477, 487, 488 [2005]). The exemption covers materials that are clearly not deliberative, such as dispatch callsbetween fm department dispatchers and fireman (The New Yo& Times Co. v Citv of NY Fire Dept., 4 NY3d 477,487 [2005]) and e-mails discussing the scheduling of meetings (Tuck-It-Away Associates. L.P. v Ernpire State Development Cog., 54 AD3d 154, 166 [lst Dept., 20081 affd. 13 NY3d 882 [2009]). Intra and inter-agency materials have been judicially construed to include all communica~ons exchanged by agency employees includingrecords of iute.rna1 conversations about or i the course of the agency s work (The New York T h e s Co.v City n ofNY Fire Dept., 4 NY3d 477,487,488 120051;M q 69 AD3d 1040, 1041-1042 [3d Dept., 20 IO]; Tuck-It-Away Associates. L.P. v Empire State Development Corn, 54 AD3d 154,166 [1st Dept., 20081; Matter of Mingo vNew York State Divaof Parole, 244 AD2d 781,782 [3d Dept., 19971). 9 [* 10] The Court has examined the e-mails that respondent has provided for in camera inspection and concludes that they are all intra-agency materials. They are all by and between respondent s employees. The next step, determining whether they were properly withheld, depends on whether they contain any statistical or factual tabulations or datq instructions to staff that affect the gubIic, final agency policy or determinations or external audits, including but not limited to audits performed by the comptroller and the federal government (see Public Officers Law 6 87 [2] [g] [i] through [iv], &. Upon examining the material respondent presented, the Court concludes that there are no statistical or factual tabulations, instwuctions to staff that affect the public, final agency policy or determinations or ccextemal audits, inchding but not limited to audits performed by the comptroller and the federal government. Factual data, the only remaining item, is all objective information, excluding opinions, impressions, ideas, recommendations or advice exchanged as part of the consultative or deliberative process of government decision making(The New York Times Co. v Citv of New York Fire Deot., 4 NY3d 477,487[2005]; Matter of Gould v New York City Police Dept., 89 NY2d 267,277 119961; Matter of Humme SocY. of U.S.v Brennan, 53 AD3d 909, 91 1 [3d Dept., ZOOS]). After examining the material for factual data or objective information, the Court concludes that there is no factual data or objective information arid therefore the e-mails were properly withheld in their entirety by respondent. 10 [* 11] The Court turns next to the only remaining group of records at issue, %e actual audit samples utilized i audits of other Medicaidproviders, which respondent withheld pursuant n to Public Officers Law 8 87(2)(e), FOIL S law enforcement investigations exemption. Respondent now asserts for the first time that petitioner did not actually request those records and has not included them within its petition i this proceeding. Respondent claims that It n is therefore unnecessary for respondent to establish i this proceeding that those documents n were properly withheId pursuant to FOIL. The Court finds that respondent was correct at the administrative level when it concluded that the audit samples of other Medicaid providers fell within petitioner srequest. Petitioner srequest T applies to records pertinent to petitioner s own audit but also applies petitioner s requests a through s to records pertinent to other Medicaid providers audits. Although respondent s change in its interpretation is suspect, the Court is unwiIling to simply huid that respondent has failed to meet its burden and order release of all of the material. Accordingly it is ORDERED, petitioner s petition for release of intra-agencydocuments is denied that and dismissed, and it is M e r ; ORDERED, that within 30 days of this decision and order respondent prepare and file its defense of its refusal to release the audit samplesof other Medicaid providers, atld it I1 [* 12] ORDERED, that final consideration of petitioner s application for attorneys fees is deferred pending receipt of the respondent s response. This shall constitute the Decision and Order of the Court, The origind Decision and Order is returned to the attorney fur the respondents. All papers except this Decision and Order are retained by the Court. The signing of this Decision and Order shall not constitute enw or filing under CPLR Rule 2220. Counsel is not relieved from the applicable provisions of that rule respecting filing, entry and notice of entry. ENTER Dated: November 8 8 , 2 012 Troy, New York Supreme Court Justice Papers Considered: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8 . Amended Notice of Petition dated Jaxluasy 12,2012; Notice of Petition dated January 11,2012; Petition dated Jatluary 10,2012, with exhibits annexed; Memorandum of Law dated January 11,2012; Answer dated April 24,2012; Afidavit of Sarah Dasenbrock dated February 13, 2012, with exhibits annexed; Memorandum of Law dated April 24,ZO 12; Affrdavit of Roy W. Breitenbach dated May 2,2012. 12

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.