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

attorneylease
attorneylease

Related Cases

Hope v. Warden York County Prison
View Case »
Ashfaque v. Holder
View Case »
Kim Ho Ma v. Ashcroft
View Case »
Raza v. Department of Justice
View Case »
Shaya v. Holder
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Levy v. U.S. Attorney Gen.

Facts

In March 2011, the petitioner and the Suffolk County District Attorney's Office entered into a non-prosecution agreement resolving an investigation into alleged activities by the petitioner in his individual capacity and as Suffolk County Executive. In February 2021, nonparty Newsday, LLC submitted a request to the District Attorney's Office for the production of the non-prosecution agreement pursuant to the Freedom of Information Law. The petitioner then commenced this proceeding to enjoin the District Attorney's Office from disclosing the agreement. The Supreme Court ultimately denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

In March 2011, the petitioner and the Suffolk County District [***2] Attorney's Office (hereinafter the District Attorney's Office) entered into a non-prosecution agreement resolving an investigation into alleged activities by the petitioner in his individual capacity and as Suffolk County Executive. In February 2021, nonparty Newsday, LLC (hereinafter Newsday), submitted a request to the District Attorney's Office for the production of the non-prosecution agreement pursuant to the Freedom of Information Law (Public Officers Law art 6 [hereinafter FOIL]). Thereafter, the petitioner commenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, to enjoin the District Attorney's Office from disclosing, in response to the FOIL request, the non-prosecution agreement.

Issue

Whether the Suffolk County District Attorney's Office was required to disclose the non-prosecution agreement under the Freedom of Information Law despite the petitioner's claim of confidentiality.

Whether the Suffolk County District Attorney's Office was required to disclose the non-prosecution agreement under the Freedom of Information Law despite the petitioner's claim of confidentiality.

Rule

The Freedom of Information Law imposes a broad duty on government agencies to make their records available to the public, and any promise of confidentiality does not protect against disclosure under FOIL.

FOIL imposes a broad duty on government agencies to make their records available to the public.

Analysis

The court applied the Freedom of Information Law, determining that the non-prosecution agreement did not qualify for exemption from disclosure. The court found that the promise of confidentiality made to the petitioner did not afford protection against disclosure under FOIL, and thus the agreement should be released. The court referenced previous cases to support its conclusion that the exemption claimed by the petitioner was not applicable.

The Supreme Court properly determined that any promise of confidentiality made to the petitioner did not afford a protection against disclosure of the non-prosecution agreement under FOIL and that the agreement should be released [***3] ( see [****2] Matter of Washington Post Co. v New York State Ins. Dept. , 61 NY2d 557 [1984] ).

Conclusion

The court affirmed the lower court's order, denying the petition and dismissing the proceeding, and ruled that the non-prosecution agreement should be disclosed.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Who won?

Suffolk County District Attorney's Office prevailed in the case as the court upheld the decision to disclose the non-prosecution agreement, emphasizing the public's right to access government records.

Suffolk County District Attorney's Office prevailed in the case as the court upheld the decision to disclose the non-prosecution agreement, emphasizing the public's right to access government records.

You must be