October 19, 2006

The staff of the Committee on Open Government is authorized to issue advisory opinions. The ensuing staff advisory opinion is based solely upon the information presented in your correspondence.


I have received your letter in which you requested an advisory opinion concerning the denial of your Freedom of Information Law request by the New York City Department of Probation concerning records pertaining to you.

In this regard, I am unaware of any statutory provision that pertains to access to or the confidentiality of probation records, except §390.50 of the Criminal Procedure Law, which deals with pre-sentence reports and related records. That statute generally indicates that pre-sentence reports are confidential and available only at the direction of a court. There are, however, certain provisions of the regulations promulgated by the State Division of Probation pertaining to probation records generally. Section 348.1(b) states that:

"(b) Cumulative case record is a single case file containing all information with respect to a case from its inception through its conclusion. All records developed and/or received by the probation department and which are related to the carrying out of authorized probation functions and services are considered probation records for the purpose of retention and destruction. Reports and other records material developed by the probation department and transmitted to the courts of other agencies become the responsibility of the court or other agencies as records."

Further, §348.4(k) of the regulations provides that: "Case records shall be accessible, in whole or in part, only to those authorized by law, court order and/or the Division of Probation and Correctional services."

Nevertheless, it is questionable in my view whether regulations can serve as an appropriate basis for withholding records, for it has been held that regulations do not exempt records from disclosure. Section 87(2)(a) of the Freedom of Information Law permits an agency to withhold records that are "specifically exempted from disclosure by state or federal statute". It has been held by several courts, including the Court of Appeals, that an agency's regulations or the provisions of an administrative code or ordinance, for example, do not constitute a "statute" [see e.g., Morris v. Martin, Chairman of the State Board of Equalization and Assessment, 440 NYS 2d 365, 82 AD 2d 965, reversed 55 NY 2d 1026 (1982); Zuckerman v. NYS Board of Parole, 385 NYS 2d 811, 53 AD 2d 405 (1976); Sheehan v. City of Syracuse, 521 NYS 2d 207 (1987)]. For purposes of the Freedom of Information Law, a statute would be an enactment of the State Legislature or Congress. Therefore, I do not believe that regulations can be considered as a statute that would exempt records from disclosure or that an agency can rely upon regulations as a basis for withholding a record.

As such, it would appear that rights of access would be governed by the Freedom of Information Law. As a general matter, the Freedom of Information Law is based upon a presumption of access. Stated differently, all records of an agency are available, except to the extent that records or portions thereof fall within one or more grounds for denial appearing in §87(2)(a) through (j) of the Law.

Perhaps the provision of primary significance in the context of your inquiry is §87(2)(g). Although that provision serves as one of the grounds for denial of access to records, due to its structure, it often requires substantial disclosure. The cited provision permits an agency to withhold records that:

"are inter-agency or intra-agency materials which are not:

i. statistical or factual tabulations or data;

ii. instructions to staff that affect the public;

iii. final agency policy or determinations; or

iv. external audits, including but not limited to audits performed by the comptroller and the federal government..."

It is noted that the language quoted above contains what in effect is a double negative. While inter-agency or intra-agency materials may be withheld, portions of such materials consisting of statistical or factual information, instructions to staff that affect the public, final agency policy or determinations or external audits must be made available, unless a different ground for denial could appropriately be asserted. Concurrently, those portions of inter-agency or intra-agency materials that are reflective of opinion, advice, recommendation and the like could in my view be withheld.

I hope that I have been of assistance.


Executive Director


BY: Janet M. Mercer
Administrative Professional


cc: Richard Levy