| Doe v Lake Grove Sch. |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 04571 [107 AD3d 841] |
| June 19, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Jane Doe et al., Respondents, v Lake Grove Schoolet al., Defendants. Suffolk County Police Department, NonpartyAppellant. |
—[*1]
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for negligence, the nonparty SuffolkCounty Police Department appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court,Queens County (Kerrigan, J.), entered July 2, 2012, as granted that branch of theplaintiffs' motion which was to direct it to disclose to them all contact informationconcerning the defendants John Doe 1 and John Doe 2.
Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs,and that branch of the plaintiffs' motion which was to direct the nonparty Suffolk CountyPolice Department to disclose to them all contact information concerning the defendantsJohn Doe 1 and John Doe 2 is denied.
On or about February 1, 2011, the infant plaintiff, then 16 years of age and a studentat the Lake Grove School in Suffolk County, allegedly was abducted from the school bytwo male students, held against her will, and sexually assaulted in the bathroom of anearby store. The infant plaintiff reported the incident to the Suffolk County PoliceDepartment (hereinafter the SCPD) and identified the two male students as theperpetrators. Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed with the SCPD an "Application for PublicAccess to Records," pursuant to the Freedom of Information Law, seeking, in sum andsubstance, all reports concerning this incident. On November 9, 2011, the SCPD partiallygranted the application by providing the plaintiffs with a copy of its SupplementaryReport dated April 25, 2011, which indicated, inter alia, that the case was closed. In thecopy provided, the names and current whereabouts of the two male students, who werenever arrested or prosecuted, were redacted. The reason for the redactions was thatdisclosure of such information would result in an unwarranted invasion of personalprivacy pursuant to Public Officers Law § 87 (2) (b). In partially granting theapplication, the SCPD advised the plaintiffs of the right to appeal the determination tothe Suffolk County Attorney within 30 days.
As relevant here, on January 30, 2012, the plaintiffs commenced this action against,among others, the Lake Grove School and the two male students, identified in this actionas John Doe 1 and John Doe 2 (hereinafter together the John Doe defendants), inter alia,to recover damages for negligence. Shortly thereafter, the plaintiffs moved, among otherthings, to direct the nonparty [*2]SCPD to disclose thefull names, addresses, and contact information for the John Doe defendants. TheSupreme Court granted that branch of the motion which was to direct the SCPD todisclose to the plaintiffs all contact information concerning the John Doe defendants,including last known addresses and social security numbers.
Pursuant to Public Officers Law § 89 (4) (a), a person denied access torequested information under the Freedom of Information Law must appeal the denial inwriting to the head of the entity or other designated person within 30 days (see Matterof Tinker St. Cinema v State of N.Y. Dept. of Transp., 254 AD2d 293, 294 [1998]).Here, as the record does not establish that the plaintiffs followed this procedural path, theSCPD is correct that the plaintiffs failed to exhaust their administrative remedies and,thus, could not resort to a judicial forum to gain relief (see Matter of Kurland vMcLaughlin, 122 AD2d 947 [1986]; Matter of Jamison v Tesler, 300 AD2d194 [2002]; Matter of McGriff v Bratton, 293 AD2d 401 [2002]; Matter ofNewton v Police Dept. of City of N.Y., 183 AD2d 621, 623 [1992]).
Accordingly, the Supreme Court erred in granting that branch of the plaintiffs'motion which was to direct the SCPD to disclose to the plaintiffs all contact informationconcerning the John Doe defendants. Dillon, J.P., Angiolillo, Chambers andHinds-Radix, JJ., concur.