| Matter of Regenhard v City of New York |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 00537 [102 AD3d 612] |
| January 31, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| In the Matter of Catherine Regenhard et al.,Appellants, v City of New York et al., Respondents. |
—[*1] Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Ellen Ravitch of counsel), forrespondents.
Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Cynthia S.Kern, J.), entered on or about October 25, 2011, which denied the petition seeking,among other things, to annul respondents' determination denying their Freedom ofInformation Law (Public Officers Law art 6) request for a list of the names and homeaddresses of the family members, next of kin, or authorized representatives of the 2,749people who died in the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center, anddismissed the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously affirmed,without costs.
Respondents' determination denying petitioner's FOIL request was not affected by anerror of law (see Mulgrew vBoard of Educ. of the City School Dist. of the City of N.Y., 87 AD3d 506, 507[1st Dept 2011], lv denied 18 NY3d 806 [2012]). The court properly found thatthe requested information is exempt from disclosure pursuant to FOIL because suchdisclosure would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy (Public OfficersLaw § 87 [2] [b]). Since the disclosure of the names and home addresses of thefamilies or representatives of the 2,749 people who died in the attacks on the WorldTrade Center does not fall within one of the six examples of an unwarranted invasion ofpersonal privacy enumerated in Public Officers Law § 89 (2) (b), we must balancethe privacy interests at stake against the public interest in disclosure of the information(see Mulgrew, 87 AD3d at 507; see also Matter of New York Times Co. v City of N.Y. FireDept., 4 NY3d 477, 485 [2005]). The request for a list of these names and homeaddresses raises heightened privacy concerns, particularly in light of the"enormous—perhaps literally unequalled—public attention" that has beenpaid to the attacks and their aftermath (id. at 486). We reject petitioners' assertionthat there is a stronger public interest in sending a letter to the families providing greaterspecificity about the planned location of unidentified remains of those who died in theattacks, which would be 70 feet underground and could be viewed by the families afterpassing through the National September 11 Memorial Museum without paying anadmission fee. Notwithstanding the importance of the location of these remains to thefamilies, respondents have largely addressed petitioners' concerns by sending a letter tothe families providing substantially similar, if less detailed, information. Further,petitioners' objection that respondent's letter failed to encourage the recipients to provideany input does not outweigh the [*2]families' privacyinterests.
Petitioners' request for attorneys' fees is denied (Public Officers Law § 89 [4][c]). Concur—Gonzalez, P.J., Friedman, Moskowitz, DeGrasse and Freedman, JJ.[Prior Case History: 2011 NY Slip Op 32844(U).]