Matter of Whitley v New York County Dist. Attorney's Off.
2012 NY Slip Op 08435 [101 AD3d 455]
December 6, 2012
Appellate Division, First Department
As corrected through Wednesday, February 6, 2013


In the Matter of Daryl Whitley, Appellant,
v
New YorkCounty District Attorney's Office et al., Respondents.

[*1]Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, New York (Juan A. Arteaga of counsel), forappellant.

Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Richard Nahas of counsel), forrespondents.

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Cynthia S. Kern, J.),entered September 15, 2011, which denied the petition seeking, among other things, to annulrespondents' determination denying petitioner's Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) request forcertain documents concerning the investigation and prosecution of a crime for which petitionerwas convicted, and dismissed the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimouslyaffirmed, without costs.

Respondents' determination was not affected by an error of law (see CPLR 7803 [3];Mulgrew v Board of Educ. of the CitySchool Dist. of the City of N.Y., 87 AD3d 506, 507 [1st Dept 2011], lv denied18 NY3d 806 [2012]). Respondents correctly determined that disclosure of the requesteddocuments would have interfered with petitioner's then-pending criminal appeal and anysubsequent proceedings in the underlying criminal case (see Public Officers Law §87 [2] [e] [i]; Matter of Moreno v NewYork County Dist. Attorney's Off., 38 AD3d 358, 358 [1st Dept 2007], lv denied9 NY3d 801 [2007]). Respondents generically identified the kinds of documents sought and therisks of disclosing the documents (seeMatter of Lesher v Hynes, 19 NY3d 57, 67 [2012]; Matter of Legal Aid Socy. v NewYork City Police Dept., 274 AD2d 207, 214 [1st Dept 2000], lv dismissed in part, deniedin part 95 NY2d 956 [2000]). We reject petitioner's contention that respondents wererequired to set forth particularized findings about whether the FOIL exemption at issue applied toeach responsive document (see Lesher, 19 NY3d [*2]at67; Legal Aid Socy., 274 AD2d at 213-214).

We have considered petitioner's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Moskowitz, Abdus-Salaam and Feinman, JJ. [PriorCase History: 2011 NY Slip Op 32444(U).]


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.