QueensRail Corp. v Metropolitan Transp. Auth.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

QueensRail Corp. v Metropolitan Transp. Auth. 2022 NY Slip Op 33023(U) September 9, 2022 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 157453/2021 Judge: William Franc Perry 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. INDEX NO. 157453/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 38 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/09/2022 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY PRESENT: 23 PART HON. WILLIAM FRANC PERRY Justice -------------------X QueensRail Corporation INDEX NO. MOTION DATE Petitioner, 157453/2021 10/14/2021 001 MOTION SEQ. NO. -vDECISION + ORDER ON MOTION Metropolitan Transportation Authority Respondent. -------------------,X The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19,20,21, 22, 23,24,25,26,27, 28,29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36,37 were read on this motion to/for ARTICLE 78 (BODY OR OFFICER) In this Article 78 proceeding, Petitioner QueensRail Corporation, "a not-for-profit formed to advocate for reactivating the former Long Island Railroad ["LIRR"] Rockaway Beach Branch that has been idle sin~e 1962," seeks an order directing Respondent MTA to produce unredacted records and cost proposals of an MTA contractor, Systra Inc. ("Systra"), relating to an ongoing contract between Systra and LIRR. (NYSCEF Doc No. 1, Petition, at ,i,r 1, 34-39.) Background Petitioner submitted a FOIL request to MTA on March 4, 2020, seeking: Documents relating to the above-referenced task and project between Systra Engineering, Inc. ("SYSTRA") and the LIRR, Contract No. 6168C-10-09 (all releases and modifications): 1) SYSTRA's proposal dated 5/31/17 2) SYSTRA's revised proposal dated 9/8/17 3) SYSTRA's complete work product produced under the terms of this contract as per the Technical Scope of Work (TSOW). (NYSCEF Doc No. 2.) 157453/2021 QUEENSRAIL CORPORATION vs. METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY Motion No. 001 [* 1] 1 of 4 Page 1 of4 INDEX NO. 157453/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 38 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/09/2022 On February 10, 2021, Respondent provided Systra's original proposal to Petitioner, with "large swaths" redacted, "rendering the cost information effectively non..:existent." (Petition at 11 11-12; NYSCEF Doc No. 3, Original Cost Proposal.) In making the redactions, Respondent invoked Public Officers Law ("POL") § 87[2][d], which permits redactions if the information sought constitutes "trade secrets or are submitted to an agency by a commercial enterprise or derived from information obtained from a commercial enterprise and which if disclosed would cause substantial injury to the competitive position of the subject enterprise." Respondent denied disclosure of Systra's revised cost proposal in its entirety, and, in response to the request for Systra' s complete work product, provided an internet link to Systra' s "final work product," stating that drafts thereof constituted inter-agency or intra-agency materials, pursuant to POL § 87[2][g]. (NYSCEF Doc No. 2 at 1.) On March 5, 2021, Petitioner appealed the redacted disclosure of the original cost proposal and the complete denials of the revised cost proposal and complete work product. (NYSCEF Doc No.4.) An appeals officer found the redactions to the original cost proposal to be proper; granted the appeal regarding the revised cost proposal and provided a redacted version thereof (NYSCEF Doc No. 6, Revised Cost Proposal); and determined the withholding of the complete work product to be proper. (NYSCEF Doc No. 5.) Petitioner commenced this proceeding on August 9, 2021. Discussion It is well settled that all records of a public agency, including police records, are presumptively open for public inspection and copying, and that the burden rests at all times on the government agency to justify any denial of access to records requested under FOIL. (See New York State Rifle and Pistol Assoc. v Kelly, 55 AD3d 222, 224 [1st Dept 2008]; New York Civil 157453/2021 QUEENSRAIL CORPORATION vs. METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY Motion No. 001 [* 2] 2 of 4 Page 2of4 INDEX NO. 157453/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 38 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/09/2022 Liberties Union v New York City Police Dept., 20 Misc 3d 1108[A] [Sup Ct, NY County 2008]; see also, Gould v New York City Police Dept., 89 NY2d 267, 274 [1996] [FOIL was enacted "[t]o promote open government and public accountability"]; Public Officers Law§ 84; Matter ofAbdurRashid v New York City Police Dept., 31 NY3d 217,224 [2018].) In furtherance of FOIL's legislative policy favoring disclosure, "[e]xemptions are to be narrowly construed to provide maximum access, and the agency seeking to prevent disclosure carries the burden of demonstrating that the requested material falls squarely within a FOIL exemption by articulating a particularized and specific justification for denying access." (Matter ofCapital Newspapers Div. ofHearst Corp. v Burns, 67 NY2d 562, 566 [1986].) Here, Respondent has met its burden in demonstrating that the requested information falls within the exception provided by POL § 87[2][d], as the disclosure thereof "would cause substantial injury to the competitive position of the subject enterprise [Systra]." (James, Hoyer, Newcomer, Smiljanich and Yanchunis, P.A. v State, Office ofAttorney Gen., 27 Misc 3d 1223[A], at *9 [Sup Ct, NY County 2010] [withholding of information proper where disclosure of cost information to competitors could provide them with an unfair advantage]; compare with Bahnken v New York City Fire Dept., 17 AD3d 228, 230 [1st Dept 2005] [finding that withholding of contracts between ambulance service companies and private hospitals was improper because there was no evidence that the private hospitals constituted commercial enterprises actively competing for ambulance services].) Respondent submits the affidavit of Kimberly Slaughter, the President of Systra, who avers that producing unredacted copies of the information sought, specifically information regarding costs, would cause substantial commercial injury to Systra in the highly competitive field of railway engineering. (NYSCEF Doc No. 12.) 157453/2021 QUEENSRAIL CORPORATION vs. METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY Motion No. 001 [* 3] 3 of 4 Page 3of4 INDEX NO. 157453/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 38 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/09/2022 Petitioner's request for attorneys' fees is denied in this court's discretion, as the court finds that Respondent had a reasonable basis for denying access to the records. (POL § 89(4][c)[ii] [in FOIL proceedings, the court "shall assess" attorneys' fees and costs against agency if petitioner "has substantially prevailed and the court finds that the agency had no reasonable basis for denying access"].) Thus, it is hereby ADJUDGED that the application is denied and the petition is dismissed, with costs and disbursements to respondent; and it is further ADJUDGED that respondent recovers from petitioner costs and disbursements as taxed by the Clerk, and that respondent have execution therefor. 9/09/2022 DATE CHECK ONE: WILLIAM FRANC PERRY, J.S.C. CASE DISPOSED GRANTED 0 DENIED APPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN ~ NON-FINAL DISPOSITION GRANTED IN PART SUBMIT ORDER FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT 157453/2021 QUEENSRAIL CORPORATION vs. METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY Motion No. 001 [* 4] 4 of 4 • • OTHER REFERENCE Page4of4

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.