In the Matter of Law Office of Cyrus Joubin, etc. v Manhattan District Attorney's Office
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Access to public records under New York Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) versus protection of attorney work product in criminal intake materials.
The Supreme Court ordered in camera review and directed disclosure of the District Attorney's datasheet with redactions, and later awarded attorneys' fees to the petitioner upon reargument.
The Appellate Division reversed the disclosure order and the fee award, denied the petition in full, and dismissed the CPLR article 78 proceeding.
The District Attorney's datasheet is attorney work product under CPLR 3101(c) [attorney work product is absolutely privileged from disclosure], thus exempt from FOIL under Public Officers Law § 87(2)(a) [exempts records specifically exempted from disclosure by state or federal statute], and not disclosable even with redactions. Because petitioner did not substantially prevail, and there was no finding that the agency lacked a reasonable basis for denial, attorneys' fees under Public Officers Law § 89(4)(c)(ii) [permits attorneys' fees where petitioner substantially prevailed and the agency had no reasonable basis for denial] were unwarranted.
Background
Petitioner sought agency records from the Manhattan District Attorney's Office under Public Officers Law § 84 et seq. [New York Freedom of Information Law (FOIL)]. The DA denied the request. In a CPLR article 78 proceeding [special proceeding to challenge administrative action], the Supreme Court ordered an in camera inspection and directed production of a DA intake datasheet with personal identifying information redacted, and later, on reargument, awarded attorneys' fees.
Lower Court Decision
By supplemental order and judgment (March 26, 2024), the Supreme Court directed disclosure of the DA datasheet with redactions after in camera review and otherwise upheld the denial. By order (October 10, 2024), the court granted reargument and awarded reasonable attorneys' fees and costs to petitioner.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division reversed both the disclosure directive and the fee award, denied the petition in its entirety, and dismissed the proceeding. It held the DA datasheet is attorney work product (reflecting the intake attorney's analysis and conclusions) protected by CPLR 3101(c) and therefore exempt from FOIL under Public Officers Law § 87(2)(a), not subject to disclosure even with redactions. Without having substantially prevailed, and absent any finding that the agency lacked a reasonable basis for denial, petitioner was not entitled to attorneys' fees under Public Officers Law § 89(4)(c)(ii).
Legal Significance
Confirms that prosecutorial intake datasheets reflecting legal analysis are categorically attorney work product and thus exempt from FOIL via the statutory exemption for records protected by other statutes. Clarifies that in camera review does not override CPLR 3101(c), and that FOIL fee awards require both substantial success and a finding of no reasonable agency basis.
FOIL cannot compel disclosure of District Attorney intake datasheets because they are protected attorney work product under CPLR 3101(c) and exempt under Public Officers Law § 87(2)(a); without substantially prevailing and a finding that the agency lacked a reasonable basis for denial, attorneys' fees are unavailable.