February 10, 1995



Ms. Sara B. Sonne
West Lake Road
P.O. Box 777
Tuxedo Park, NY 10987

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.

Dear Ms. Sonne:

I have received your letter and the materials attached to it. As in the case of your earlier inquiry, you have raised questions concerning rights of access to records prepared by the Village of Tuxedo Park Police Department.

Specifically, you sought reports prepared by the Police Chief given to the Mayor and the Board of Trustees consisting of an "outline of monthly police activity." Although the matter was considered exhaustively in an advisory opinion of November 17, copies of which were sent to the Village, you have not received what you consider to be "satisfactory" replies to your request and appeal. The only basis for denial offered in writing by any Village official involves a contention that the records sought consist of "intra-agency material" that may be withheld.

You have asked "where do [you] go from here." In this regard, I offer the following comments.

First, while I do not believe that it is necessary to reiterate the substance of the opinion prepared in November, it may be worthwhile to consider the exception concerning intra-agency materials more expansively in view of the Chief's response. I would agree that the records sought consist of intra-agency materials. However, the content of those materials serve as the basis for determining the extent to which they must be disclosed or may be withheld. As I understand the content of the records in question, they consist of brief factual summaries of events. If that is so, I believe that they must be disclosed. In Ingram v. Axelrod, the Appellate Division held that:

"After reviewing the report in camera and applying to it the above statutory and regulatory criteria, we find that Special Term correctly held pages 3-5 ('Chronology of Events' and 'Analysis of the Records') to be disclosable. These pages are clearly a 'collection of statements of objective information logically arranged and reflecting objective reality'. (10 NYCRR 50.2[b]). Additionally, pages 7-11 (ambulance records, list of interviews) should be disclosed as 'factual data'. They also contain factual information upon which the agency relies (Matter of Miracle Mile Assoc. v Yudelson, 68 AD2d 176, 181 mot for lve to app den 48 NY2d 706). Respondents erroneously claim that an agency record necessarily is exempt if both factual data and opinion are intertwined in it; we have held that '[t]he mere fact that some of the data might be an estimate or a recommendation does not convert it into an expression of opinion' (Matter of Polansky v Regan, 81 AD2d 102, 104; emphasis added). Regardless, in the instant situation, we find these pages to be strictly factual and thus clearly disclosable" [90 AD 2d 568, 569 (1982)].

Similarly, the Court of Appeals has specified that the contents of intra-agency materials determine the extent to which they may be available or withheld, for it was held that:

"While the reports in principle may be exempt from disclosure, on this record - which contains only the barest description of them - we cannot determine whether the documents in fact fall wholly within the scope of FOIL's exemption for 'intra-agency materials,' as claimed by respondents. To the extent the reports contain 'statistical or factual tabulations or data' (Public Officers Law section 87[2][g][i], or other material subject to production, they should be redacted and made available to the appellant" [Xerox Corporation v. Town of Webster, 65 NY 2d 131, 133 (1985)].

In short, to be considered "factual", information need not consist of graphs or rows of numbers or tabulations; rather, factual data may consist, for example, of a chronology of events. Further, even though statistical or factual information may be "intertwined" with opinions, the statistical or factual portions, if any, as well as any policy or determinations, would be available, unless a different ground for denial could properly be asserted.

Second, it is emphasized that the courts have consistently interpreted the Freedom of Information Law in a manner that fosters maximum access. As stated by the Court of Appeals more than decade ago:

"To be sure, the balance is presumptively struck in favor of disclosure, but in eight specific, narrowly constructed instances where the governmental agency convincingly demonstrates its need, disclosure will not be ordered (Public Officers Law, section 87, subd 2). Thus, the agency does not have carte blanche to withhold any information it pleases. Rather, it is required to articulate particularized and specific justification and, if necessary, submit the requested materials to the courts for in camera inspection, to exempt its records from disclosure (see Church of Scientology of N.Y. v. State of New York, 46 NY 2d 906, 908). Only where the material requested falls squarely within the ambit of one of these statutory exemptions may disclosure be withheld" [Fink v. Lefkowitz, 47 NY 2d 567, 571 (1979)]."

In another decision rendered by the Court of Appeals, it was held that:

"Exemptions are to be narrowly construed to provide maximum access, and the agency seeking to prevent disclosure carries the burden of demonstrating that the requested material falls squarely within a FOIL exemption by articulating a particularized and specific justification for denying access" [Capital Newspapers v. Burns, 67 NY 2d 562, 566 (1986); see also, Farbman & Sons v. New York City, 62 NY 2d 75, 80 (1984); and Fink v. Lefkowitz, 47 NY 2d 567, 571 (1979)].

Moreover, in the same decision, in a statement regarding the intent and utility of the Freedom of Information Law, it was found that:

"The Freedom of Information Law expresses this State's strong commitment to open government and public accountability and imposes a broad standard of disclosure upon the State and its agencies (see, Matter of Farbman & Sons v New York City Health and Hosps. Corp., 62 NY 2d 75, 79). The statute, enacted in furtherance of the public's vested and inherent 'right to know', affords all citizens the means to obtain information concerning the day-to-day functioning of State and local government thus providing the electorate with sufficient information 'to make intelligent, informed choices with respect to both the direction and scope of governmental activities' and with an effective tool for exposing waste, negligence and abuse on the part of government officers" (id., 565-566).

Lastly, a court may award attorney's fees, payable by an agency, in certain circumstances. Specifically, §89(4)(c) of the Freedom of Information Law states that:

"The court in such a proceeding may assess, against such agency involved, reasonable attorney's fees and other litigation costs reasonably incurred by such person in any case under the provisions of this section in which such person has substantially prevailed, provided, that such attorney's fees and litigation costs may be recovered only where the court finds that:

i. the record involved was, in fact, of clearly significant interest to the general public: and

ii. the agency lacked a reasonable basis in law for withholding the record."

I point out that there is a decision in which the issue was whether a person representing himself who was not an attorney was eligible for an award of attorney's fees. In Leeds v. Burns (Supreme Court, Queens County, NYLJ, July 27, 1992), the petitioner was a law student who brought a proceeding against the Dean of the City University of New York Law School at Queens College pro se under the Freedom of Information Law. He prevailed and requested attorney's fees. The court found that he met all of the conditions prescribed in §89(4)(c), except one. In short, the court found that he was an "aspiring attorney" but not yet a licensed attorney, and that, therefore, attorney's fees would not be awarded. On the basis of that decision, I believe that one must be or represented by a licensed attorney in order to be eligible for an award of attorney's fees under §89(4)(c).

In an effort to encourage compliance with the Freedom of Information Law and obviate the need to litigate, copies of this opinion will be forwarded to Village officials. I hope that I have been of some assistance. Should any further questions arise, please feel free to contact me.



Robert J. Freeman
Executive Director


cc: Hon. Cornelius J. Madera, Jr., Mayor
Bill L. Bortnowsky, Chief of Police
James Sweeney, Village Attorney