Page 29 - WCBA Appellate Practice Committee CLE May 2024-Handout

result, the defendant failed to establish, prima facie, that the plaintiff consented to the entirety of his
confinement. The defendant also failed to show, prima facie, that the plaintiff did not suffer damages as
a result of the defendant’s alleged negligence. Accordingly, the defendant was not entitled to summary
judgment dismissing the complaint. Here, this Court noted that the defendant did not expressly deny
the plaintiff’s allegation that he was detained for an additional 2.5 months after it was required to
release him pursuant to CPL 180.80. Instead the defendant attempted to shift blame to the plaintiff. This
Court emphasized that the law does not permit the defendant to rely upon the plaintiff’s plea to avoid
responsibility.

Matter of Goldstein v Incorporated Vil. of Mamaroneck, 221 AD3d 111 [November 1, 2023] [Justice
Iannacci opinion; Justices Duffy, Christopher, and Voutsinas concur]

HOLDING: In a CPLR article 78 proceeding pursuant to the Freedom of Information Law, Public Officers
Law, article 6 (hereinafter FOIL), this Court reversed a judgment of the Supreme Court which denied the
petition and dismissed the proceeding. This Court determined that the requested records were
"reasonably described" and that maintaining a public website on which much of the information sought
by the petitioner could be found did not satisfy the obligations of the respondent Village of
Mamaroneck under FOIL. This Court held that the mere availability of government records on a public
website is insufficient to satisfy a request under FOIL for reproduction of such materials. However,
questions of fact as to the Village's ability to locate, identify, and produce the records requested by the
petitioner precluded summary determination of the petition.

FACTS: The petitioner made requests under FOIL to the Village of Mamaroneck for certain materials
pertaining to recusals and conflict-of-interest disclosures by members of a Village Commission and
various Village boards. Specifically, the petitioner requested “all records including but not limited to
letters, memos, email messages, phone messages, audio recordings, video recordings, text messages,
social media posting, and transcripts.” The Village advised the petitioner that it did not file its records in
a way that could be searched for the requested information, that members of the Village boards were
requested to send any relevant records and that the records would be provided to the petitioner at a
later date. The petitioner thereafter received a letter from the Village denying her FOIL requests. The
petitioner appealed the denial to the Village Manager and Record Access Appeals Officer who upheld
the determination of the Village. The petitioner then commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding against
the Village, among others, to compel disclosure of the requested records. In a supplemental affidavit in
support of her petition, the petitioner indicated that she had received a letter from the Assistant
Records Access Appeals Officer. The letter explained that the Village had denied the FOIL requests on
the basis that it did not “file records related to recusals in a central file” such that the FOIL requests
would require the Village to review all of its Board minutes for the past five years. The Officer advised
the petitioner that he agreed with the denial of the FOIL requests on this basis. In opposition, the
respondents submitted the affidavits of the Clerk-Treasurer and the Deputy Clerk. The Clerk-Treasurer
averred that agendas and minutes of public meetings were available on the Village’s website and were
capable of being searched without a FOIL request. He additionally averred that the vast bulk of the
records requested were not maintained in any manner that would allow the responsive documents to
be identified in a way that would be possible for the Village to undertake. The Clerk-Treasurer admitted
that emails could be searched electronically. However, he maintained that the one-time search

26