| Matter of Edwards v New York State Police |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 07968 [44 AD3d 1216] |
| October 25, 2007 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| In the Matter of James Edwards, Respondent, v New York StatePolice, Appellant. |
—[*1]
Rose, J. Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Ferradino, J.), entered July 31, 2006in Albany County, which, among other things, granted petitioner's application, in a proceedingpursuant to CPLR article 78, to annul a determination of respondent denying petitioner'sFreedom of Information Law request.
In 1977, petitioner was convicted of murder in the second degree (see People vEdwards, 64 AD2d 201 [1978]). In 2005, while still serving his sentence of 25 years to lifein prison, petitioner made a Freedom of Information Law (hereinafter FOIL) request for variousrecords, forensic evidence and photographs relating to the criminal investigation that led to hisconviction. Respondent largely granted petitioner's request, but withheld certain crime-scenephotographs on the ground that their release would constitute an unwarranted invasion of theprivacy of the victim's surviving family because they show the female victim's bloodied, partiallyclothed body. After a FOIL appeals officer declined to release the remaining photographs,petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding. Finding that petitioner's personal interestin the photographs outweighed the privacy rights of the victim's family, Supreme Court grantedthe petition. We now reverse.
Pursuant to FOIL, government records are presumptively available to the public unless theyare statutorily exempted by Public Officers Law § 87 (2) (see Matter of Fappiano vNew York City Police Dept., 95 NY2d 738, 746 [2001]; Matter of Grajales v Lungen, 15 AD3d 789, 790 [2005], lvdenied 5 NY3d 704 [2005]). To properly apply the exemption for "unwarranted [*2]invasion of personal privacy" (Public Officers Law § 87 [2][b]), the court must weigh the competing interests of public access and personal privacy (see Matter of New York Times Co. v Cityof N.Y. Fire Dept., 4 NY3d 477, 485-486 [2005]; Matter of Dobranski vHouper, 154 AD2d 736, 737 [1989]). Neither an individual's status as a criminal defendantnor the personal purpose for which he or she seeks the records is relevant to whether their releaseis in the public's interest (see Matter of Gould v New York City Police Dept., 89 NY2d267, 274 [1996]; Matter of Pittari v Pirro, 258 AD2d 202, 204 [1999], lv denied94 NY2d 755 [1999]; see also Matter of Mantica v New York State Dept. of Health, 248AD2d 30, 33 [1998], affd 94 NY2d 58 [1999]).
Here, Supreme Court viewed the disputed photographs in camera and correctly found that thevictim's family has a privacy interest in protecting her dignity and memory. In performing therequired balancing test, however, the court mistakenly weighed petitioner's personal purpose inseeking the remaining photographs against the family's privacy interest and found the scales tiltedin favor of petitioner's personal need for access. When the correct factor is substituted forpetitioner's personal interest, however, and we consider the public's interest in access to theremaining photographs in the light of Supreme Court's observation that they are of no significantinterest to the public, the result clearly favors a finding that the exemption applies. Moreover,petitioner failed to show that the materials previously released "will be insufficient to meet thepublic's need to be informed" (Matter of New York Times Co. v City of N.Y. Fire Dept.,4 NY3d at 487).
Cardona, P.J., Carpinello, Mugglin and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isreversed, on the law, without costs, and petition dismissed.