« After bond sale, plan to to detour traffic on Fifth Avenue and Pacific Street announced | Main | The Times backs into acknowledging the much-reduced Barclays naming rights deal »
December 16, 2009
EMINENT DOMAINIA: The Big Apple Bites!
The NY Observer, Top Court Rules for Warehouse Owner Over State in Columbia Records Suit
On Dec. 3, the owner of a set of warehouses in the footprint of Columbia University's planned West Harlem expansion, with his lawyer, Norman Siegel, were handed a highly unexpected victory in a suit that challenged the use of eminent domain for the project.
And now the state's top court has ruled in his favor on a different matter: open records.
The New York Court of Appeals on Tuesday unanimously ruled that the state's economic development agency, which administers eminent domain, must turn a set of records over that Mr. Sprayregen had requested through the Freedom of Information Law. The agency, the Empire State Development Corporation, had provided numerous documents but withheld a set related to a 2004 agreement between the agency and Columbia. Mr. Sprayregen appealed the agency's denial of his FOIL request, and was denied again. He then sued in state Supreme Court and won, though ESDC did not provide all the documents, preferring to appeal. He won again at the appellate level; ESDC appealed again; and now the agency has exhausted its appeals.
Atlantic Yards Report, Court of Appeals smacks down ESDC in FOIL case related to Columbia expansion
Norman Oder explains the state's high court's decision:
The West Harlem Business Group (WHBG) then went to court, arguing that ESDC failed to articulate a particularized and specific justification for withholding the requested documents. ESDC said it not only had fully complied with its obligations under FOIL but also asserted that the documents were exempt either as intra- or inter-agency material or privileged attorney-client communications.
The Supreme Court tried to examine all documents in-camera, but, according to the ruling, ESDC failed to identify which documents fell within each particular exemption, asserting only that the documents were either non-responsive, exempt intra- or inter-agency office records, or had been previously disclosed.
At issue were five documents; the Appellate Division agreed they should be disclosed, and that was appealed.
The Court of Appeals said that "this litigation could have been avoided, or significantly limited, had ESDC in the first instance complied with the dictates of FOIL."
Posted by lumi at December 16, 2009 4:35 AM