Background
This is the latest chapter in the NYCLU’s long-running Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) battle with the New York State Police over law enforcement disciplinary records — litigation sparked by the Legislature’s 2020 repeal of Civil Rights Law § 50-a, which had long shielded those records from public disclosure. Since the repeal, the NYCLU has sought the production of State Police personnel and disciplinary records through a series of overlapping FOIL requests.
In a prior appeal, the Third Department had already rejected the State Police’s “herculean efforts” defense and ordered it to produce 20 years of disciplinary reports on a rolling basis. This appeal concerned a spreadsheet the State Police generated in response to the NYCLU’s September 2020 FOIL request. The spreadsheet cataloged allegations of misconduct by calendar year and case number for over two decades, noting for each entry: the nature of the claim; whether the claim was founded, unfounded, unsubstantiated, or closed; any penalty imposed; and officer names for founded cases. For every unfounded, unsubstantiated, or closed case, however, the State Police redacted the officers’ names — claiming that disclosure would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy under Public Officers Law § 87(2)(b).
In April 2023, the NYCLU filed a new FOIL request for an unredacted copy of the spreadsheet. The State Police denied it, asserting a categorical personal-privacy exemption for all non-founded entries. Supreme Court, Albany County annulled the denial, ordered unredacted disclosure within 90 days, and awarded counsel fees. The State Police appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Third Department modified and affirmed. The Court agreed with Supreme Court that the State Police had improperly asserted a “blanket” personal-privacy exemption — a practice directly prohibited by the Court of Appeals in Matter of New York Civil Liberties Union v City of Rochester, 43 NY3d 543 (2025). The repeal of Civil Rights Law § 50-a does not create a categorical exemption for unsubstantiated complaints against officers; each record must be assessed on its own merits.
The State Police abandoned on appeal its categorical position and instead argued it should be permitted to make individualized redaction decisions. The Court accepted that request — but refused to let the State Police proceed on an indefinite timeline. The State Police had suggested at oral argument that review could take “years.” The Court rejected that: the instant FOIL request covers a limited and known universe of information, and the State Police had already committed to expanding resources for FOIL compliance. The matter was remitted to Supreme Court to set a reasonable, definitive disclosure deadline.
Critically, the Court upheld the award of counsel fees. Under FOIL’s fee-shifting provision, fees are mandatory when a petitioner “substantially prevailed” and the agency had “no reasonable basis” for denying access. The State Police had the benefit of prior court decisions expressly cautioning against categorical privacy exemptions — yet it maintained that position anyway. That was unreasonable, and the fee award stands.
Key Takeaways
- FOIL prohibits categorical, blanket personal-privacy exemptions for names of officers whose misconduct allegations were unfounded, unsubstantiated, or closed — each redaction must be justified individually with a particularized showing.
- When an agency asserts an improper blanket exemption, the remedy is not immediate wholesale disclosure: courts can remit for individualized review, but must set a definitive (not open-ended) compliance timeline.
- Cross-referencing risk matters: even if officer names are redacted on a spreadsheet, disclosure may still raise privacy concerns if those names can be cross-referenced with separately released disciplinary reports — a factor courts must weigh case by case.
- FOIL counsel fees are mandatory where the agency’s denial had no reasonable basis, even if the agency reverses course on appeal — prior judicial guidance makes continued reliance on a prohibited approach unreasonable as a matter of law.
Why It Matters
This is the third published appellate chapter in the NYCLU’s effort to enforce the Legislature’s transparency mandate following the repeal of Civil Rights Law § 50-a in 2020. For government lawyers and FOIL practitioners, the decision reinforces that agencies cannot use the personal-privacy exemption as a shield against disclosure of unsubstantiated misconduct allegations: the exemption must be applied record-by-record, not across a category. The mandatory fee award underscores that courts will hold agencies accountable for ignoring prior judicial guidance.
For civil rights advocates and journalists, the decision keeps the pressure on: the State Police must now justify every redaction on the spreadsheet, and must do so on a court-ordered timetable rather than at its own pace. As state agencies across New York continue to process the wave of FOIL requests generated by the § 50-a repeal, this opinion gives requestors a template for challenging bulk redactions and seeking fee awards when agencies stonewall without reasonable basis.