Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

plaintifflitigationattorneydiscoveryprecedentmotionsummary judgmentobjectionsustainedmotion for summary judgment
plaintifflitigationmotionsummary judgmentobjectionsustainedmotion for summary judgment

Related Cases

Bell & Marra, pllc v. Sullivan, 300 Mont. 530, 6 P.3d 965, 2000 MT 206
View Case »
Matter of Estate of Krueger, 176 Mich.App. 241, 438 N.W.2d 898
View Case »
Horne v. Peckham, 97 Cal.App.3d 404, 158 Cal.Rptr. 714, 207 U.S.P.Q. 527
View Case »
In re Lindsey A.F., 262 Wis.2d 200, 2003 WI 63, 663 N.W.2d 757
View Case »
Hinds v. State Bar of Cal., 19 Cal.2d 87, 119 P.2d 134
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Fusco v. City of Albany, 134 Misc.2d 98, 509 N.Y.S.2d 763

Facts

The action was initiated by the plaintiffs to recover for injuries sustained by Mary Fusco on August 30, 1982, when she fell on a City sidewalk. The City claimed that the plaintiffs had not complied with Local Law No. 1 of 1953, which requires written notice of sidewalk defects prior to the incident. The plaintiffs argued that their attorney was denied access to the City's records regarding any prior notice of defects. The City admitted to denying access, citing the filing of a note of issue as a reason to halt further discovery.

The action was initiated by the plaintiffs to recover for injuries sustained by Mary Fusco on August 30, 1982, when she fell on a City sidewalk.

Issue

Whether the plaintiffs' agent had the right to access the City of Albany's records concerning prior written notice of sidewalk defects under the Freedom of Information Law, despite the ongoing litigation.

Whether the plaintiffs' agent had the right to access the City of Albany's records concerning prior written notice of sidewalk defects under the Freedom of Information Law, despite the ongoing litigation.

Rule

The Freedom of Information Law mandates that government records should be accessible to the public, and this right is not negated by the existence of litigation against the governmental body.

The Freedom of Information Law mandates that government records should be accessible to the public, and this right is not negated by the existence of litigation against the governmental body.

Analysis

The court determined that the plaintiffs' agent was entitled to inspect the Department of Public Works' records regarding prior written notice of sidewalk defects, as the Freedom of Information Law allows such access regardless of ongoing litigation. The court rejected the City's argument that the filing of a note of issue barred access to these records, citing precedent that supports the public's right to government records.

The court determined that the plaintiffs' agent was entitled to inspect the Department of Public Works' records regarding prior written notice of sidewalk defects, as the Freedom of Information Law allows such access regardless of ongoing litigation.

Conclusion

The court denied the City's motion for summary judgment and converted the plaintiffs' cross motion into an Article 78 proceeding, ordering the City to allow access to the requested records.

The court denied the City's motion for summary judgment and converted the plaintiffs' cross motion into an Article 78 proceeding, ordering the City to allow access to the requested records.

Who won?

The plaintiffs prevailed in this case because the court recognized their right to access public records under the Freedom of Information Law, despite the City's objections.

The plaintiffs prevailed in this case because the court recognized their right to access public records under the Freedom of Information Law, despite the City's objections.

You must be