Appellant's Brief (City)

7/30/2019 Appellant's Brief (City)

1/35

Supreme Cour t , New Yor k Count y To be ar gued byI ndex No. 106213/ 2011 SUSAN PAULSON

NEW YORK SUPREME COURTAPPELLATE DI VI SI ON: FI RST DEPARTMENT

SERGI O HERNANDEZ,

Pet i t i oner - Respondent ,

For a J udgment Under Ar t i cl e 78 of t he Ci vi lPract i ce Law and Rul es,

- agai nst -

OFFI CE OF THE MAYOR OF THE CI TY OF NEW YORK,

Respondent - Appel l ant .

BRIEF OF APPELLANT

MI CHAEL A. CARDOZO,Cor por at i on Counsel of t he

Ci t y of New Yor k,At t orney f or Respondent -Appel l ant ,100 Chur ch St r eet ,

New Yor k, New Yor k 10007.( 212) 788- 1362 or 1055spaul son@l aw. nyc. gov

FRANCI S F. CAPUTO,J EFFREY S. DANTOWI TZ,SUSAN PAULSON,

Of Counsel

J ul y 9, 2012

REPRODUCED ON RECYCLED PAPER


2/35

Page

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF AUTHORI TI ES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i i i

PRELI MI NARY STATEMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1QUESTI ON PRESENTED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

A. Ms. Bl ack s Sel ect i on as NewYor k Ci t y School s Chancel l or . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

B. Pet i t i oner s FOI L Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4C. Ar t i cl e 78 Pr oceedi ng. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6D. Supr eme Cour t Deci si on. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

RELEVANT STATUTORY AUTHORI TY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8ARGUMENT

THE CI TY PROPERLY I NVOKED THEI NTRA- AGENCY EXEMPTI ON TO WI THHOLDRESPONSI VE RECORDS THAT REFLECTTHE DELI BERATI VE PROCESS OFGOVERNMENT I NVOLVED I N PROMOTI NG

THE SMOOTH TRANSI TI ON OF EXECUTI VEPOWER. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9A. The Documents At I ssue Wer e

Pr oper l y Wi t hhel d to Pr ot ectt he Del i ber at i ve Pr ocess ofGover nment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

B. The Documents At I ssue Wer eProper l y Wi t hhel d Because,Dur i ng t he Rel evant Ti me

Per i od, Ms. Bl ack Was Act i ng I nAn Advi sory Rol e t o the Ci t y -As An Agent Of , Or Consul t antTo, t he Ci t y. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18


3/35

Page

i i

C. The Documents At I ssue Wer ePr oper l y Wi t hhel d to Pr ot ectt he Conf i dent i al i t y Necessar yFor Candi d and Ef f ect i veCommuni cat i ons Bet ween t he Ci t yAnd I t s Prospect i ve Empl oyee. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

CONCLUSI ON. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25PRI NTI NG SPECI FI CATI ONS STATEMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26PREARGUMENT STATEMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


4/35

Page

i i

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

CASES

Bur ke v. Cr osson,

85 N. Y. 2d 10 ( 1995) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Ci r al e v. 80 Pi ne St r eet Cor p,

35 N. Y. 2d 113 ( 1974) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Cl evel and v. Capl aw Ent er s. ,

448 F. 3d 518 ( 2d Ci r . 2006) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Col umbi a Br oad. Sys. , I nc. v. St okel y- Van Camp, I nc. ,

522 F. 2d 369 ( 2d Ci r . 1975) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Depar t ment of I nt er i or v. Kl amat h Wat er Users Pr otect i ve Assn. ,

532 U. S. 1 ( 2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17, 18

Goodst ei n & West v. O' Rour ke,

201 A. D. 2d 731 ( 2d Dept . 1994) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Goul d v. New Yor k Ci t y Pol i ce Dept . ,

89 N. Y. 2d 267 ( 1996) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Gul f I ns. Co. v. Tr ansat l ant i c Rei ns. Co. ,

69 A. D. 3d 71 ( 1st Dept . 2009) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

I n r e Shul man Tr ansp. Ent er pr i ses, I nc. ,

744 F. 2d 293 ( 2d Ci r . 1984) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

I t el Cont ai ner s I nt l Cor p. v. At l ant - Tr af i k Expr ess Ser vi ce,

Lt d. , 909 F. 2d 698 ( 2d Ci r . 1990) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Kheel v. Ravi t ch, 93 A. D. 2d 422 ( 1st Dept . 1983) ,

af f d, 62 N. Y. 2d 7 ( 1984) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14, 25

Mat t er of Sea Cr est Const r . Cor p. v. St ubi ng,

82 A. D. 2d 546 ( 2d Dept . 1981) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12, 21, 22, 25

Mat t er of Town of Water f ord v. New Yor k St ate Dept . of Envt l .

Conser vat i on, 77 A. D. 3d 224 ( 3d Dept . 2010) ,

af f d i n par t and modi f i ed i n par t by 18 N. Y. 3d 652 ( 2012)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15, 16


5/35

Page

i i i

Mat t er of Town of Water f ord v. New Yor k St ate Dept . of Envt l .

Conservat i on,

18 N. Y. 3d 652 ( 2012) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9, 15, 16

Mat t er of Tuck- I t - Away Assoc. , L. P. v. Empi r e St ate Devel opment

Cor p. , 54 A. D. 3 154 ( 1st Dept . 2008) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

New Yor k Ti mes Co. v. Ci t y of New Yor k Fi r e Dept . ,

4 N. Y. 3d 477 ( 2005) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12, 13

One Beekman Pl ace v. Ci t y of New York,

169 A. D. 2d 492 ( 1st Dept . 1991) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13, 14

Pr of essi onal St andar ds Revi ew Counci l of Amer i ca, I nc. v. New

Yor k St at e Dept . of Heal t h,

193 A. D. 2d 937 ( 3d Dept . 1993) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Rothenber g v. Ci t y Uni ver si t y of New Yor k,

191 A. D. 2d 195 ( 1st Dept . )

app. deni ed, 81 N. Y. 2d 710 ( 1993) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Ryan v. Dep' t of J ust i ce,

617 F. 2d 781 ( D. C. Ci r . 1980) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Ti gue v. Uni t ed St at es DOJ ,

312 F. 3d 70 ( 2d Ci r . 2002) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Xerox Corp. v. Webst er ,

65 N. Y. 2d 131 ( 1985) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11, 12, 15

STATUTES5 Uni t ed St at es Code 552( b) ( 5) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Ci vi l Pr act i ce Law and Rul es 5519( a) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Ci vi l Pr act i ce Law and Rul es 5701( a) ( 1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Ci vi l Pr act i ce Law and Rul es 5701( a) ( 2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Ci vi l Pr act i ce Law and Rul es 5701( c) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Educat i on Law 3003( 1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3, 22

Educat i on Law 3003( 3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3, 23

Publ i c Of f i cer s Law 87( 2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . passi m


6/35

Page

i v

Publ i c Of f i cer s Law 87( 2) ( b) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Publ i c Of f i cer s Law 87( 2) ( g) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . passi m

Publ i c Of f i cer s Law 89( 4) ( c) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6, 12

TREATISESRest at ement ( Second) of Agency 1 cmt . b ( 1958) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Restat ement ( Second) of Agency 26 ( 1958) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

REGULATIONS8 New Yor k Ci t y Rul es and Regul at i ons 80- 3. 10( b) ( 3) ( i i i ) . . . . . 3


7/35

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

Pet i t i oner - r espondent Ser gi o Her nandez, a r epor t er

af f i l i at ed wi t h t he Vi l l age Voi ce, r equest ed cer t ai n document s

f r om t he Of f i ce of t he Mayor of t he Ci t y of New Yor k

( her ei naf t er t he Ci t y) pur suant t o t he New York St at e Freedom

of I nf or mat i on Law ( FOI L) . These document s r el at e t o t he

hi r i ng of Ms. Cat hl een Bl ack t o ser ve as t he New Yor k Ci t y

School s Chancel l or . The Ci t y deni ed t he FOI L r equest cl ai mi ng

exempt i ons f r om di scl osur e based on unwar r ant ed i nvasi on of

pr i vacy and f or i nt er - agency and i nt r a- agency mat er i al s. By

Or der of t he Supr eme Cour t , New Yor k Count y (Schl esi nger , J . ) ,

ent ered December 6, 2011, t he Supreme Cour t grant ed Hernandez s

Ar t i cl e 78 pet i t i on and di r ect ed t he Ci t y t o r el ease t he

r equest ed document s. The Ci t y appeal s f r om t hat port i on of t he

Cour t s r ul i ng t hat f ound t hat t he document s are not exempt f r om

di scl osur e as i nt r a- agency r ecor ds.

QUESTION PRESENTED

Di d t he Supr eme Cour t er r i n f i ndi ng t hat t he subj ect

document s are not exempt as i nt r a- agency r ecords under New Yor k

Publ i c Of f i cer s Law 87( 2) ( g) wher e, at al l t i mes r el evant t o

t hi s act i on, Ms. Bl ack was act i ng as an agent of , or consul t ant

t o, t he Ci t y of New Yor k or Mayor Mi chael Bl oomber g and, i n t hi s

capaci t y, communi cat i ng wi t h Ci t y of f i ci al s as par t of t he

del i ber at i ve pr ocess under l yi ng t he Ci t y s f i l i ng of a School


8/35

Di st r i ct Leader Cer t i f i cat e r equest on her behal f i n or der t o

pr omot e t he smoot h t r ansi t i on of government ?

STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS

A. Ms. Blacks Selection as New York City Schools Chancellor.I n ear l y November 2010, Mayor Mi chael Bl oomber g

sel ect ed Cat hl een P. Bl ack t o be t he Chancel l or of t he Ci t y

school di st r i ct , upon t he pendi ng r esi gnat i on of t he t hen-

ser vi ng Chancel l or , J oel Kl ei n. Recor d on Appeal ( R. ) 43.

Mayor Bl oomber g publ i cl y announced hi s sel ect i on of Ms. Bl ack t o

be t he next Chancel l or on November 9, 2010. I d.

Ms. Bl ack di d not meet t he el i gi bi l i t y r equi r ement s of

Educat i on Law 3003( 1) f or a super i nt endent cer t i f i cat e i n

t hat , al t hough she possessed t he r equi si t e Bachel or of Ar t s

degr ee, she di d not possess t he gr aduat e cour sework or

exper i ence r equi r ement s. R. 43. The sel ect i on of any

i ndi vi dual t o a hi gh- l evel gover nment posi t i on i s subj ect t o

scr ut i ny and debat e, and t hi s was especi al l y t r ue wi t h r egar d t o

t he sel ect i on of Ms. Bl ack because she di d not meet t he

el i gi bi l i t y r equi r ement s f or appoi nt ment as Chancel l or . R. 43-

44. Thus, i n or der f or Ms. Bl ack t o ser ve as Chancel l or , she

was r equi r ed t o obt ai n a School Di st r i ct Leader Cer t i f i cat e f r om

t he New Yor k Stat e Educat i on Depar t ment pur suant t o Educat i on

Law 3003( 3) . R. 44. By l et t er dat ed November 17, 2010, Mayor

Bl oomberg wr ot e t o Davi d St ei ner , t he Commi ssi oner of Educat i on

- 2-


9/35

of t he New Yor k State Educat i on Depart ment , r equest i ng t hat he

pr ovi de Ms. Bl ack a School Di st r i ct Leader Cer t i f i cat e pur suant

t o Educat i on Law 3003( 3) and 8 NYCRR 80- 3. 10( b) ( 3) ( i i i ) .

I d.

Af t er her sel ect i on i n ear l y November 2010, Ms. Bl ack,

Ci t y st af f and Hear st Cor por at i on st af f assi gned t o assi st Ms.

Bl ack i n her t r ansi t i on t o Ci t y gover nment wer e r equi r ed t o

communi cat e wi t h one another i n or der t o appr opr i atel y pr epare

t he request t o Commi ssi oner St ei ner , r espond t o rout i ne quer i es

t hat are cust omary f or hi gh- l evel mayoral appoi nt ees, and engage

i n out r each pl anni ng t o the communi t y t o addr ess concerns t hat

had been publ i cl y rai sed r egar di ng Ms. Bl ack s qual i f i cat i ons.

R. 44. Ms. Bl ack was both di r ect l y communi cat i ng wi t h, as wel l

as copi ed on, emai l s bet ween t hese par t i es. I d. These emai l s

i ncl uded di scussi ons concer ni ng cl ar i f i cat i on of Ms. Bl ack s

backgr ound, di scussi ons r el at ed t o pr oposed and act ual cont act s

wi t h var i ous gover nment of f i ci al s and ot her st akehol der s

r egar di ng Ms. Bl ack s sel ect i on, and dr af t s of t he l et t er t o be

sent t o Commi ssi oner St ei ner r equest i ng a School Di st r i ct Leader

Cer t i f i cat e f or Ms. Bl ack. I d.

I t was wel l - under st ood that t he communi cat i on and

out r each ef f or t s descr i bed above wer e t o be coor di nat ed t hr ough

t he Of f i ce of t he Mayor , and t hat Ms. Bl ack and t he st af f

assi gned t o assi st her i n her t r ansi t i on t o Ci t y gover nment

- 3-


10/35

woul d be expect ed t o par t i ci pat e i n and suppor t t hese ef f or t s,

as woul d any other hi gh- l evel mayoral appoi nt ee. R. 44.

I ndeed, t he emai l s bet ween t he Of f i ce of t he Mayor and Ms. Bl ack

( whet her di r ect l y or as a cc) demonst r at e t hat whi l e Ms. Bl ack

and her st af f wer e wor ki ng i n t andem wi t h t he Of f i ce of t he

Mayor i n pur sui t of a common goal , she di d not act

i ndependent l y, but onl y at t he di r ect i on of t he Of f i ce of t he

Mayor . R. 45.

On November 29, 2010, t he New York St at e Educat i on

Depar t ment gr ant ed Ms. Bl ack t he r equest ed Cer t i f i cat e al l owi ng

her t o serve as Chancel l or . R. 45. Ms. Bl ack began servi ng as

Chancel l or on J anuary 1, 2011. R. 45.

B. Petitioners FOIL Request.By emai l dat ed November 19, 2010, pet i t i oner r equest ed

f r om t he Ci t y copi es of E- mai l messages sent f r om or r ecei ved

by any st at e el ect r oni c emai l account s assi gned t o t he Of f i ce of

t he Mayor t o or f r om an i ndi vi dual named Cat hl een Pr unt y

Cat hi e Bl ack or emai l addr esses cont ai ni ng t he domai n

hear st . com pur suant t o t he New Yor k St at e Freedom of

I nf or mat i on Law, Ar t i cl e 6 84, et seq. R. 29- 30. Fol l owi ng a

r easonabl y di l i gent sear ch of i t s r ecor ds, t he Ci t y l ocat ed a

number of r esponsi ve document s. R. 45. Each of t hese were

document s t hat Ms. Bl ack ei t her sent t o someone at Ci t y Hal l , or

on whi ch she was a r eci pi ent , ei t her di r ect l y or as a cc. I d.

- 4-


11/35

Ther e wer e no r esponsi ve document s l ocat ed t o sender s or

r eci pi ent s at a hearst . com domai n other t han t hose sent t o or

r ecei ved f r om Ms. Bl ack, as descr i bed her ei n. I d.

Al t hough pet i t i oner pur por t edl y sent hi s FOI L r equest

i n or der t o gai n i nsi ght and i nf or mat i on i nt o t he pr ocess by

whi ch Ms. Bl ack was sel ect ed t o be Chancel l or , none of t he

r esponsi ve document s deal wi t h t he sel ect i on pr ocess. R. 46.

The r esponsi ve documents concer n t he ef f or t s of t he Mayor s

of f i ce and Ms. Bl ack t o cl ar i f y and expound on Ms. Bl ack s

backgr ound t o ser ve as Chancel l or , t o addr ess quest i ons about

her qual i f i cat i ons and t o di scuss st eps t o ensur e t he success of

her candi dacy i n order t o pr omote a smoot h t r ansi t i on of

execut i ve power . I d. None of t hese document s cont ai ns ( i )

stat i st i cal or f act ual t abul at i ons or dat a; ( i i ) i nstr uct i ons to

staf f t hat af f ect t he publ i c; ( i i i ) a f i nal agency pol i cy or

det er mi nat i on or ( i v) ext er nal audi t s. I d.

By l et t er dat ed J anuar y 13, 2011, t he Ci t y deni ed

pet i t i oner s FOI L r equest pur suant t o Publ i c Of f i cer s Law

87( 2) ( b) and 87( 2) ( g) on t he gr ounds t hat di scl osure woul d

const i t ut e an unwar r ant ed i nvasi on of per sonal pr i vacy1 and that

t he request ed r ecor ds wer e i nt er - agency or i nt r a- agency

1 These document s cont ai n t he pr i vate cel l phone number s andemai l addr esses of cer t ai n gover nment of f i ci al s and ot herst akehol der s, who wer e t o be cont act ed i n f ur t her ance of t heCi t y s obj ecti ves. R. 46.

- 5-


12/35

mat er i al s. R. 32. Pet i t i oner then appeal ed t he deni al of hi s

FOI L r equest t o t he Mayor s Records Access Appeal s Of f i cer . R.

34- 36. On J anuary 26, 2011, t he Mayor s Recor ds Access Appeal s

Of f i cer uphel d t he det er mi nat i on t o deny pet i t i oner s FOI L

r equest , f i ndi ng t hat i t was pr oper t o wi t hhol d t he r equest ed

r ecor ds pur suant t o Publ i c Of f i cer s Law 87( 2) ( b) on t he gr ound

di scl osure woul d const i t ut e an unwarr ant ed i nvasi on of per sonal

pr i vacy, and pur suant t o Publ i c Of f i cer s Law 87( 2) ( g) on t he

gr ound t hat t he r equest ed r ecor ds wer e i nt er - agency or i nt r a-

agency mat er i al s. R. 38.

C. Article 78 Proceeding.By Not i ce of Pet i t i on, dat ed May 26, 2011, pet i t i oner

commenced t he i nst ant pr oceedi ng, chal l engi ng t he Ci t y s deni al

of hi s FOI L r equest and r equest i ng at t or ney s f ees pur suant t o

Publ i c Of f i cer s Law 89( 4) ( c) . R. 19, 21- 27. I n hi s pet i t i on,

pet i t i oner asser t s t hat t he Ci t y f ai l ed t o di scl ose document s i n

vi ol at i on of t he expr ess st at ut or y mandat e of FOI L. R. 21- 27.

I n essence, pet i t i oner ar gues t hat t he Ci t y has wr ongl y wi t hhel d

document s under cl ai med st at ut ory exempt i ons t hat do not

pr oper l y appl y. I d.

The Ci t y f i l ed a Ver i f i ed Answer , swor n t o on J ul y 21,

2011 asser t i ng t hat i t had f ul l y compl i ed wi t h i t s st at ut or y

obl i gat i ons. R. 40- 49. I n i t s accompanyi ng memorandum of l aw,

t he Ci t y ar gued t hat , because Cathl een Bl ack and her s t af f wer e

- 6-


13/35

agent s of t he Ci t y dur i ng t he r el evant t i me per i od and because

cor r espondence wi t h Ms. Bl ack and her st af f was del i ber at i ve i n

nat ur e, t he Ci t y pr oper l y i nvoked t he i nt r a- agency exempt i on t o

wi t hhol d t he r esponsi ve r ecor ds. The Ci t y f ur t her ar gued t hat

di scl osur e of pr i vat e t el ephone number s and emai l addr esses

woul d const i t ut e an unwar r ant ed i nvasi on of per sonal pr i vacy.

D. Supreme Court Decision.I n a deci si on and or der dat ed November 23, 2011 and

f i l ed on December 6, 2011, New Yor k Count y Supreme Cour t

( Schl esi nger , J . S. C. ) gr ant ed t he Ar t i cl e 78 Pet i t i on, di r ected

t he Ci t y t o r el ease t he subj ect r ecor ds 2 and or der ed t he par t i es

t o appear f or a conf er ence t o f ur t her addr ess t he i ssue of

counsel f ees. R. 7- 16. I n r el evant par t , t he Supr eme Cour t

concl uded t hat , because Ms. Bl ack was a pr i vat e ci t i zen at t he

t i me t he subj ect emai l s wer e wr i t t en, t he exempt i on r el at i ng t o

i nt r a- agency r ecor ds does not appl y. R. 14. The Cour t r ej ect ed

t he Ci t y s cl ai m t hat Ms. Bl ack and her st af f wer e agent s of t he

Ci t y dur i ng t he r el evant t i me and concl uded t hat communi cat i ons

wi t h peopl e out si de t he agency ar e not part of t he gover nment s

del i ber at i ve pr ocess and t hus, t hei r di scl osur e wi l l not i nhi bi t

deci si on- maki ng wi t hi n t he gover nment . R. 14- 15.

2 Pet i t i oner di d not di sput e that pr i vat e cel l phone number s andemai l addr esses shoul d be redacted and thus, such r edact i onswere al l owed by t he Cour t . R. 13.

- 7-


14/35

The Supreme Cour t di r ect ed t he Ci t y t o r el ease t he

subj ect r ecor ds wi t hi n f i f t een days of t he dat e of i t s deci si on.

R. 15. Dur i ng t hat f i f t een- day t i me per i od, t he Ci t y f i l ed i t s

Not i ce of Appeal . R. 5. Accor di ngl y, t he j udgment of t he

Supr eme Cour t i s aut omat i cal l y st ayed pur suant t o CPLR 5519( a) .

R. 5.

RELEVANT STATUTORY AUTHORITY

Ar t i cl e 6 of t he Publ i c Of f i cer s Law i s known as t he

"Freedom of I nf or mat i on Law. " Publ i c Of f i cer s Law 84, et seq.

Thi s l aw r equi r es publ i c agenci es t o make avai l abl e f or publ i c

i nspect i on and copyi ng al l r ecor ds, except t hose subj ect t o

cer t ai n enumer at ed except i ons. Publ i c Of f i cer s Law 87( 2) .

Thus, an agency may, among ot her grounds, deny access

t o r ecor ds or por t i ons t her eof t hat :

( g) ar e i nt er - agency or i nt r a-agency mat er i al s whi ch are not :

i . s tat i s t i cal or f act ualt abul at i ons or dat a;

i i . i nst ruct i ons to s taf f t hataf f ect t he publ i c;

i i i . f i nal agency pol i cy ordet er mi nat i ons;

i v. ext er nal audi t s, i ncl udi ngbut not l i mi t ed t o audi t sper f ormed by t he compt r ol l er andt he f ederal government ;

Publ i c Of f i cer s Law 87( 2) ( g) .

- 8-


15/35

ARGUMENT

THE CITY PROPERLY INVOKED THE

INTRA-AGENCY EXEMPTION TO WITHHOLD

RESPONSIVE RECORDS THAT REFLECT

THE DELIBERATIVE PROCESS OF

GOVERNMENT INVOLVED IN PROMOTING

THE SMOOTH TRANSITION OF EXECUTIVE

POWER.

The Ci t y s deter mi nat i on t o wi t hhol d t he r esponsi ve

r ecor ds was ent i r el y pr oper . The pur pose of t he i nt r a- agency

exempt i on f r om FOI L i s t o pr ot ect t he del i ber at i ve pr ocess of

gover nment by ensur i ng t hat per sons i n an advi sory rol e wi l l be

abl e t o expr ess t hei r opi ni ons f r eel y t o agency deci si on maker s.

See Mat t er of Town of Wat er f ord v. New Yor k Stat e Dept . of

Envt l . Conservat i on, 18 N. Y. 3d 652, 658 ( 2012) , Goul d v. New

Yor k Ci t y Pol i ce Dept . , 89 N. Y. 2d 267, 276 ( 1996) . I n or der t o

f ur t her t he vi t al consul t at i ve pur poses of t hi s del i ber at i ve

pr ocess, cour t s have adopt ed a f unct i onal , or common sense

appr oach t o t he def i ni t i on of i nt r a- agency i n or der t o pr ot ect

advi ce r ecei ved by agenci es f r om out si de ent i t i es. See Mat t er

of Town of Wat er f or d, 18 N. Y. 3d at 658 ( not i ng t hat i t woul d

make no sense t o pr otect t he del i ber at i ve pr ocess when report s

are pr epared by agency empl oyees yet deny t hi s pr ot ect i on when

r epor t s are pr epar ed f or t he same pur pose by out si de ent i t i es) .

At t he r el evant t i me per i od her e, Ms. Bl ack was act i ng i n an

advi sor y r ol e t o t he Ci t y - as t he Ci t y s agent or consul t ant -

i n assi st i ng t he Ci t y to mi ni mi ze any di sr upt i on occasi oned by

- 9-


16/35

t he t r ansi t i on i n Chancel l or s by hel pi ng t o pr epar e i t s r equest

t hat Commi ssi oner St ei ner i ssue her a School Di st r i ct Leader

Cer t i f i cat e. The r esponsi ve emai l s ar e i nt r a- agency r ecor ds

r ef l ect i ng t he del i ber at i ve pr ocess under l yi ng t he Cer t i f i cat e

r equest and, because t hey do not cont ai n any of t he i nf ormat i on

excl uded f r om t he i nt r a- agency exempt i on as set f or t h i n Publ i c

Of f i cer s Law 87( 2) ( g) , t hey wer e pr oper l y wi t hhel d f r om

di scl osur e.

I t i s cr i t i cal l y i mpor t ant t o t he smoot h t r ansi t i on of

government t hat i ncomi ng and out goi ng admi ni st r at i ons and

admi ni st r at ors of government agenci es ar e abl e to communi cat e

wi t h each ot her f r eel y and openl y wi t hout concer ns t hat t hose

communi cat i ons wi l l be subj ect t o di scl osur e. Decl i ni ng t o

appl y t he i nt r a- agency exempt i on t o ci r cumst ances such as t hose

at bar woul d i nhi bi t gover nment agenci es f r om communi cat i ng wi t h

t hei r i ncomi ng empl oyees, woul d compr omi se t he qual i t y of agency

deci si ons, and woul d di scour age candi dat es f or gover nment of f i ce

f r om engagi ng i n t he t ype of candi d communi cat i on necessary f or

gover nment consi der at i on of pot ent i al hi gh- l evel empl oyees.

Here, where Ms. Bl ack had al r eady been sel ect ed as t he Mayor s

appoi nt ee t o ser ve as Chancel l or , i t was vi t al l y i mpor t ant t hat

she candi dl y communi cat e about her backgr ound and qual i f i cat i ons

and par t i ci pat e i n t he gi ve and t ake of t he consul t at i ve pr ocess

t o assi st t he Ci t y i n t he pr esent at i on of t he Cer t i f i cat e

- 10-


17/35

r equest . Si mpl y because Ms. Bl ack was sel ect ed f r om t he pr i vat e

sect or , i nst ead of f r om wi t hi n Ci t y gover nment , shoul d not mean

t hat her communi cat i ons wi t h t he Ci t y dur i ng her t r ansi t i on t o

gover nment ar e not ent i t l ed t o t he pr ot ect i on af f or ded by t he

i nt r a- agency exempt i on. See e. g. Xer ox Corp. v. Webst er , 65

N. Y. 2d 131, 133 ( 1985) ( r ecords may be consi der ed "i nt r a- agency

mater i al " even t hough pr epared by an out si de consul t ant at t he

behest of an agency as par t of t he agency' s del i ber at i ve

pr ocess) . Because t hese communi cat i ons are pr eci sel y t he sor t

of pr e- deci si onal document s t hat t he i nt r a- agency exempt i on

pr ot ect s, t he Supr eme Cour t s or der di r ect i ng di scl osur e shoul d

be r eversed. Because t he Supr eme Cour t di d not r esol ve t he i ssue of

counsel f ees, t her e may be a quest i on as t o whet her t he Ci t y s

appeal i s r evi ewabl e as of r i ght under CPLR 5701( a) ( 1) .

Nonet hel ess, i nasmuch as t he Supr eme Cour t di r ect ed t he Ci t y t o

r el ease t he subj ect r ecor ds, t he Ci t y i s aggr i eved by t he

Cour t s Or der and i s ent i t l ed t o appeal . See CPLR 5701( a) ( 2)

( par t y i s ent i t l ed t o appeal or der t hat i nvol ves some par t s of

t he mer i t s or af f ects a subst ant i al r i ght ) . I f , however , t hi s

Cour t concl udes t hat t he Supr eme Cour t s j udgment i s non- f i nal

because t he i ssue of counsel f ees r emai ns unr esol ved, t he Ci t y

asks t hi s Cour t t o consi der i t s not i ce of appeal as an

appl i cat i on f or l eave t o appeal under CPLR 5701( c) , conver t t he

- 11-


18/35

i nst ant appeal i nt o an appeal by per mi ssi on, and accept t he

argument s pr esent ed herei n. See Bur ke v. Cr osson, 85 N. Y. 2d 10,

18 ( 1995) ( wher e request f or at t or neys' f ees was an i nt egr al

par t of asser t ed causes of act i on, r at her t han a separ at e cause

of act i on of i t s own, or der t hat l ef t pendi ng assessment of

at t or neys' f ees was non- f i nal ) . Wher e t he i ssue of counsel f ees

under Publ i c Of f i cer s Law 89( 4) ( c) r equi r es an eval uat i on of

whet her t he Ci t y had a r easonabl e basi s f or denyi ng access t o

t he r equest ed mat er i al s, a deci si on f r om t hi s Cour t wi l l assi st

t he Supr eme Cour t i n r esol vi ng t he i ssue i f i t s deci si on

gr ant i ng t he Ar t i cl e 78 pet i t i on i s af f i r med.

A. The Documents At Issue Were Properly Withheld to Protectthe Deliberative Process of Government.

Publ i c Of f i cer Law 87( 2) ( g) exempt s i nt er - agency or

i nt r a- agency mat er i al s f r om di scl osur e i n or der t o pr ot ect t he

del i ber at i ve pr ocess of t he gover nment by ensur i ng t hat per sons

i n an advi sor y rol e woul d be abl e t o expr ess t hei r opi ni ons

f r eel y t o agency deci si on maker s. Xer ox Corp. v. Town of

Webst er , 65 N. Y. 2d at 132 ( quot i ng Mat t er of Sea Cr est Const r .

Corp. v. St ubi ng, 82 A. D. 2d 546, 549 ( 2d Dept . 1981) ) . See New

Yor k Ti mes Co. v. Ci t y of New Yor k Fi r e Dept . , 4 N. Y. 3d 477, 488

( 2005) ( t he i nt r a- and i nt er - agency exempt i on was enact ed t o

per mi t peopl e wi t hi n an agency t o exchange opi ni ons, advi ce and

cr i t i ci sm f r eel y and f r ankl y, wi t hout t he chi l l i ng pr ospect of

- 12-


19/35

publ i c di scl osur e) . I ndeed, t he deni al of r equest s f or

di scl osur e of mat er i al s whi ch cont ai n opi ni ons, advi ce,

eval uat i ons, del i ber at i ons, pr oposal s, concl usi ons,

r ecommendat i ons or ot her subj ect i ve mat er i al i s r out i nel y and

consi st ent l y uphel d by t he cour t s. See, e. g. , Prof essi onal

St andards Revi ew Counci l of Amer i ca, I nc. v. New Yor k St ate

Dept . of Heal t h, 193 A. D. 2d 937, 939 ( 3d Dept . 1993) ( comment s,

opi ni ons and r ecommendat i ons of t hose i nvol ved i n maki ng

cont r act awar d exempt f r om di scl osur e under 87( 2) ( g) ) ;

Rothenber g v. Ci t y Uni ver si t y of New Yor k, 191 A. D. 2d 195, 196

( 1st Dept . ) app. deni ed, 81 N. Y. 2d 710 ( 1993) ( r epor t cont ai ni ng

commi t t ee r ecommendat i ons concerni ng candi dat es f or promot i on

exempt f r om di scl osur e under 87( 2) ( g) ) .

I t has l ong been r ecogni zed t hat t he publ i c i nt er est

i s served by keepi ng cer t ai n gover nment document s pr i vi l eged

f r om di scl osur e. One Beekman Pl ace v. Ci t y of New Yor k, 169

A. D. 2d 492, 493 ( 1st Dept . 1991) ci t i ng Ci r al e v. 80 Pi ne St r eet

Corp, 35 N. Y. 2d 113, 116 (1974) ( hol di ng t hat cert ai n gover nment

document s may be wi t hhel d i f t he publ i c i nt erest woul d be harmed

by di scl osur e) . I n One Beekman Pl ace, I nc. v. Ci t y of New Yor k,

t hi s Cour t expr essl y r ecogni zed t he publ i c i nt er est i n

encour agi ng candi d di scussi on among gover nment empl oyees i n t he

devel opment of pol i cy and r eachi ng agency deci si ons. 169 A. D. 2d

at 493; see al so New Yor k Ti mes Co. , 4 N. Y. 3d at 488- 489 ( poi nt

- 13-


20/35

of i nt r a- agency except i on i s t o per mi t i nt er nal exchange of

candi d advi ce and opi ni ons wi t hout chi l l i ng pr ospect of publ i c

di scl osur e) .

Cl ear l y, t he candor of t hose assi st i ng i n t he

deci si on- maki ng pr ocess woul d be i mpeded i f t hey knew t hei r

opi ni ons, del i ber at i ons, anal yses and r ecommendat i ons wer e

exposed t o publ i c scrut i ny. The abi l i t y t o f r eel y voi ce and

di scuss opi ni ons and conf l i ct i ng vi ews i s essent i al t o an

agency s abi l i t y to candi dl y assess compet i ng f act s and r ender

wel l - r easoned deci si ons. See One Beekman Pl ace, I nc. , 169

A. D. 2d at 493. Exposi ng t he del i ber at i ons of agency per sonnel

t o second- guessi ng woul d hi nder t hi s process, and under mi ne the

agency s abi l i t y t o make t he best deci si ons. See Kheel v.

Ravi t ch, 93 A. D. 2d 422, 427- 28 ( 1st Dept . 1983) , af f d, 62

N. Y. 2d 7 ( 1984) ( pr e- deci si onal memorandum, pr epared i n

f ur t her ance of t he deci si onal pr ocess, i s exempt f r om di scl osur e

under 87( 2) ( g) ) . I n addi t i on, exposi ng t he gover nment s pr e-

empl oyment communi cat i ons wi t h prospect i ve hi gh- l evel empl oyees

coul d di scour age candi dat es f r om consi der i ng such posi t i ons f or

f ear of di scl osur e of t hei r candi d communi cat i ons about t hei r

backgr ound and qual i f i cat i ons.

Gi ven t he vi t al consul t at i ve pur poses of t hi s

del i ber at i ve pr ocess, cour t s have adopt ed a f unct i onal , or

common sense appr oach t o t he def i ni t i on of i nt r a- agency i n

- 14-


21/35

or der t o pr ot ect advi ce r ecei ved by agenci es f r om out si de

ent i t i es. See Mat t er of Town of Wat er f ord, 18 N. Y. 3d at 658.

I n t hi s r egar d, i t has been wel l - r ecogni zed t hat whi l e t hat

t er m [ i nt er - agency or i nt r a- agency mat er i al s] has not been

def i ned i n FOI L, i t has been i nt er pr et ed t o i ncl ude

communi cat i ons bet ween st ate agenci es and out si de ent i t i es t hat

. . . do not f al l wi t hi n t he l i t er al def i ni t i on of agency

cont ai ned i n t he st at ut e. Mat t er of Town of Wat er f or d v. New

Yor k St at e Dept . of Envi r onmental Conser vat i on, 77 A. D. 3d 224,

230- 231 ( 3d Dept . 2010) , af f d i n par t and modi f i ed i n par t by

18 N. Y. 3d 652 ( 2012) . As t he Cour t of Appeal s has st ated:

I n connect i on wi t h t hei rdel i ber at i ve pr ocess, agenci es mayat t i mes r equi r e opi ni ons andrecommendat i ons f rom out s i deconsul t ant s. I t woul d make l i t t l esense t o pr ot ect t he del i ber at i ve

pr ocess when such r epor t s ar eprepar ed by agency empl oyees yetdeny t hi s prot ect i on when r epor t sare prepared f or t he same pur poseby out si de consul t ant s r et ai ned byagenci es. Accor di ngl y, we hol dt hat r ecor ds may be consi dered' i nt r a- agency mat er i al ' event hough pr epared by an out si deconsul t ant at t he behest of anagency as par t of t he agency' s

del i ber at i ve pr ocess.

Xer ox Cor por at i on, 65 N. Y. 2d at 132. Thus, r ecor ds t hat woul d,

i f pr epared by agency empl oyees, be exempt f r om di scl osur e under

t he Fr eedom of I nf or mat i on Law ( FOI L) as ' i nt r a- agency

- 15-


22/35

mat er i al s' . . . do not l ose t hei r exempt st at us si mpl y because

t hey ar e pr epar ed f or t he agency, at i t s r equest , by an out si de

consul t ant . " I d. ( quot i ng N. Y. Publ i c Of f i cer Law 87( 2) ( g) ) ;

see Mat t er of Tuck- I t - Away Assoc. , L. P. v. Empi r e St at e

Devel opment Corp. , 54 A. D. 3 154 ( 1st Dept . 2008) ; Goodst ei n &

West v. O' Rour ke, 201 A. D. 2d 731, 732 ( 2d Dept . 1994) .

Fact or s consi der ed i n det er mi ni ng t he appl i cabi l i t y of

t hi s exempt i on ar e t he nat ur e of t he r el at i onshi p t he out si de

ent i t y had wi t h t he government agency as wel l as t he cont ent and

cont ext of t he communi cat i ons sought t o be di scl osed. See

Mat t er of Town of Wat er f ord, 77 A. D. 3d at 231- 232. Thus, si mpl y

because an out si de ent i t y i s a pr i vat e concer n and not par t of a

government agency does not pr ecl ude appl i cat i on of t he exempt i on

t o t hei r communi cat i ons. I d. I f however , t he out si de ent i t y

r epr esent s a di f f er ent const i t uency and i t s i nt er est s may

di ver ge f r om t hose of t he gover nment agency wi t h whi ch i t i s

communi cat i ng, t he i nt r a- agency exempt i on wi l l not appl y. See

Mat t er of Town of Wat er f or d, 18 N. Y. 3d at 658 ( r ej ect i ng

ar gument t hat EPA i s equi val ent of an out si de consul t ant f or

pur poses of appl yi ng i nt r a- agency exempt i on) .

Li kewi se, f eder al cour t s have i nt er pr et ed t he

exempt i on f or i nt r a- agency memoranda i n t he f eder al Fr eedom of

I nf or mat i on Act t o appl y t o communi cat i ons f r om consul t ant s who

- 16-


23/35

ef f ect i vel y f unct i on as agency empl oyees. 3 See e. g. Ti gue v.

Uni t ed St ates DOJ , 312 F. 3d 70, 77 ( 2d Ci r . 2002) ( r ecogni zi ng

t hat agenci es may r equi r e assi st ance f r om out si de consul t ant s i n

f or mul at i ng pol i cy, Cour t hol ds t hat scope of i nt er -

agency/ i nt r a- agency exempt i on does not t ur n on f act t hat r epor t s

wer e pr epar ed by out si de consul t ant s r at her t han agency st af f ) ;

accor d Ryan v. Dep' t of J ust i ce, 617 F. 2d 781, 790 ( D. C. Ci r .

1980) . I n consi der i ng t he scope of t hi s exempt i on, t he Uni t ed

St ates Supr eme Cour t has si mi l ar l y observed t hat " t he f act about

t he consul t ant t hat i s const ant i n t he t ypi cal cases i s t hat t he

consul t ant does not r epr esent an i nt er est of i t s own, or t he

i nt er est of any ot her cl i ent , when i t advi ses t he agency t hat

hi r es i t " . Depar t ment of I nt er i or v. Kl amat h Wat er User s

Pr ot ect i ve Assn. , 532 U. S. 1, 10- 11 ( 2001) ( r ej ect i ng cl ai ms

t hat document s submi t t ed by var i ous I ndi an t r i bes t o Depar t ment

of I nt er i or expr essi ng t r i bes' posi t i ons on a wat er al l ocat i on

pr oj ect wer e "i nt r a- agency" document s because t r i bes wer e

i nt er est ed par t i es compet i ng f or a gover nment benef i t ) . The

Uni t ed St ates Supr eme Cour t expl ai ned t hat , i n cases wher e t he

exempt i on f or i nt er - agency or i nt r a- agency mat er i al s has been

3 Under t he Freedom of I nf or mat i on Act , 5. U. S. C. 552, i nt er -agency or i nt r a- agency memorandums or l et t ers whi ch woul d not beavai l abl e by l aw t o a par t y ot her t han an agency i n l i t i gat i onwi t h t he agency ar e exempt f r om di scl osur e. 5 U. S. C. 552( b) ( 5) .

- 17-


24/35

ext ended t o consul t ant s per f ormi ng work on behal f of an agency,

" t he r ecor ds submi t t ed by out si de consul t ant s pl ayed essent i al l y

t he same part i n an agency' s process of del i ber at i on as

document s pr epared by agency per sonnel mi ght have done. " I d. at

10. Thus, consul t ant s whose communi cat i ons have t ypi cal l y been

hel d exempt have not been communi cat i ng wi t h t he Gover nment i n

t hei r own i nt er est or on behal f of any per son or gr oup whose

i nt er est s mi ght be af f ect ed by t he Gover nment act i on addr essed

by the consul t ant , i nst ead t hey ar e assi st i ng t he agency i n t he

per f or mance of i t s own f unct i ons. I d. at 12.

B. The Documents At Issue Were Properly Withheld Because,During the Relevant Time Period, Ms. Black Was Acting In An

Advisory Role to the City - As An Agent Of, Or Consultant

To, the City.

The document s at i ssue i n t hi s case ar e emai l

communi cat i ons bet ween Ms. Bl ack, Ci t y st af f and/ or Hearst

Cor por at i on st af f assi gned t o assi st Ms. Bl ack i n her t r ansi t i on

t o Ci t y government . These communi cat i ons concern t he Ci t y s

pr eparat i on of t he r equest t o Commi ssi oner St ei ner f or a School

Di st r i ct Leader Cer t i f i cat e f or Ms. Bl ack, r esponses t o r out i ne

quer i es, and out r each pl anni ng t o t he communi t y. R. 44. These

emai l s i ncl uded di scussi ons concer ni ng cl ar i f i cat i on of Ms.

Bl ack s backgr ound, di scussi ons r el at ed t o cont act s wi t h var i ous

i ndi vi dual s r egar di ng Ms. Bl ack s sel ect i on, and dr af t s of t he

l et t er t o be sent t o Commi ssi oner St ei ner . See i d.

- 18-


25/35

I n communi cat i ng wi t h the Ci t y about her backgr ound

and qual i f i cat i ons, Ms. Bl ack was act i ng at t he Ci t y s behest ,

i n f ur t her ance of i t s Ci t y s i nt er est i n havi ng Commi ssi oner

St ei ner i ssue t he r equest ed Cer t i f i cat e. See R. 44. I ndeed,

t he responsi ve document s show t hat Ms. Bl ack and her st af f di d

not act i ndependent l y, but at t he di r ect i on of t he Mayor . See

R. 45. Ms. Bl ack was, i n ef f ect , act i ng as t he Ci t y s agent or

consul t ant dur i ng t hi s per i od of t i me.

An expr ess agency i s cr eated by wr i t t en or spoken

wor ds or ot her conduct of t he pr i nci pal whi ch, r easonabl y

i nt er pr et ed, causes t he agent t o bel i eve t hat t he pr i nci pal

desi r es hi m t o act on t he pr i nci pal s account . I t el

Cont ai ner s I nt l Cor p. v. At l ant - Tr af i k Expr ess Ser vi ce, Ltd. ,

909 F. 2d 698, 702 ( 2d Ci r . 1990) ( quot i ng Rest at ement ( Second)

of Agency 26 ( 1958) ) . Whet her such an agency i s f ormed

depends on t he act ual i nt er act i on bet ween t he put at i ve pr i nci pal

and agent , not on any percept i on a thi r d par t y may have of t he

rel at i onshi p. I d.

Under New Yor k common l aw . . . an agency

r el at i onshi p r esul t s f r om a mani f est at i on of consent by one

per son t o anot her t hat t he ot her shal l act on hi s behal f and

subj ect t o hi s cont r ol , and t he consent by t he ot her t o act . "

Gul f I ns. Co. v. Tr ansat l ant i c Rei ns. Co. , 69 A. D. 3d 71, 96- 97

( 1st Dept . 2009) ( i nt er nal quot at i ons and ci t at i ons omi t t ed) ;

- 19-


26/35

Rest at ement ( Second) of Agency 1 cmt . b ( 1958) . The quest i on

whet her an agency r el at i onshi p exi st s i s hi ghl y f act ual and can

t ur n on a number of f act or s, i ncl udi ng: t he si t uat i on of t he

par t i es, t hei r r el at i ons t o one anot her , and t he busi ness i n

whi ch they ar e engaged; t he gener al usages of t he busi ness i n

quest i on and t he pur por t ed pr i nci pal ' s busi ness met hods; t he

natur e of t he subj ect mat t er s and the ci r cumst ances under whi ch

t he busi ness i s done. Col umbi a Br oad. Sys. , I nc. v. St okel y- Van

Camp, I nc. , 522 F. 2d 369, 375- 76 ( 2d Ci r . 1975) . The cr i t i cal

f act or i n t hi s assessment i s t he cont r ol of t he agent by t he

pr i nci pal . See I n r e Shul man Tr ansp. Ent er pr i ses, I nc. , 744

F. 2d 293, 296 ( 2d Ci r . 1984) . Never t hel ess, t he cont r ol

asser t ed need not " i ncl ude cont r ol at ever y moment ; i t s exer ci se

may be ver y at t enuat ed and, as wher e t he pr i nci pal i s physi cal l y

absent , may be i nef f ect i ve. " Cl evel and v. Capl aw Ent er s. , 448

F. 3d 518, 522 ( 2d Ci r . 2006) .

Her e, wher e Ms. Bl ack was sel ect ed f or t he posi t i on of

Chancel l or but a St at e Cer t i f i cat e had t o be obt ai ned i n or der

f or her appoi nt ment t o be appr oved, Ms. Bl ack was act i ng as an

agent of t he Ci t y dur i ng t he r el evant t i me per i od. Havi ng been

sel ect ed by t he Mayor as t he i ncomi ng Chancel l or and havi ng

accept ed t hat sel ecti on, t o f aci l i t at e t hi s tr ansi t i on, Ms.

Bl ack act ed under t he Ci t y s gui dance i n f ur t her ance of i t s

- 20-


27/35

i nt er est i n havi ng t hat sel ect i on appr oved t hr ough

Commi ssi oner St ei ner s i ssuance of t he r equest ed cer t i f i cat e.

I n addi t i on, as descr i bed above, Ms. Bl ack s r ol e was

aki n t o that of a consul t ant , communi cat i ng wi t h t he Ci t y at t he

Ci t y s behest and i n f ur t her ance of i t s i nt er est t hat she be

awar ded the request ed School Di st r i ct Leader Cer t i f i cat e so t hat

she coul d serve as Chancel l or . Ms. Bl ack di d not r epr esent an

i ndependent i nt er est of her own separ at e f r om t he Mayor s

i nt er est or t he i nt er est of any t hi r d par t y; i nst ead she was

assi st i ng t he Ci t y i n per f or mi ng i t s own f unct i on of obt ai ni ng

t he Cer t i f i cat e f r om t he St at e. Thi s i s made cl ear by t he

natur e of t he emai l s at i ssue whi ch communi cate i nf ormat i on t o

assi st t he Ci t y i n pr esent i ng t he School Di st r i ct Leader

Cer t i f i cat e request , not i nf or mat i on r el at i ng t o an i ndependent

i nt er est of Ms. Bl ack s. Thus, wi t h r egar d t o t he document s at

i ssue, t he i nt r a- agency exempt i on appl i es as a resul t of Ms.

Bl ack s rol e as a consul t ant . See Mat t er of Sea Cr est Const r .

Corp. , 82 A. D. 2d at 548 ( f i ndi ng t hat r equest ed corr espondence,

pr epar ed by a consul t ant , f al l s wi t hi n exempt i on f or i nt r a-

agency mater i al s exempt f r om di scl osur e) .

- 21-


28/35

C. The Documents At Issue Were Properly Withheld to Protectthe Confidentiality Necessary For Candid and Effective

Communications Between the City And Its Prospective

Employee.

As di scussed above, t he under l yi ng pur pose of t he

i nt r a- agency exempt i on i s t he need t o pr ot ect t he del i ber at i ve

pr ocess of gover nment so as t o ensure t he uni nhi bi t ed r i ght and

need of t he agency t o r el y upon opi ni ons and recommendat i ons not

onl y of i t s own empl oyees, but al so of out si de i ndi vi dual s or

ent i t i es. Thi s extends as wel l t o t he gover nment s need f or

candi d communi cat i ons wi t h pr ospect i ve empl oyees about t hei r

backgr ound and qual i f i cat i ons f or t he j ob under consi der at i on.

A f unct i onal , or common- sense, appl i cat i on of t he i nt r a- agency

exempt i on recogni zes t hat such communi cat i ons shoul d be

pr ot ect ed r egardl ess of whether t he pr ospect i ve empl oyee comes

f r om wi t hi n gover nment or f r om t he pr i vat e sect or . See Mat t er

of Sea Cr est Const r . Cor p. , 82 A. D. 2d at 549 ( r ecogni zi ng

cour t s use of a common sense i nt er pr et at i on of ' i nt r a- agency'

t o accommodat e r eal i t i es of t ypi cal agency del i ber at i ve

pr ocess) .

Hear , i n ear l y November 2010, Mayor Bl oomber g sel ect ed

Ms. Bl ack t o serve as Chancel l or upon t he pendi ng r esi gnat i on of

J oel Kl ei n. R. 43. Because Ms. Bl ack di d not meet t he

el i gi bi l i t y requi r ement s of Educat i on Law 3003( 1) , Mayor

Bl oomberg was r equi r ed t o request t hat Commi ssi oner St ei ner of

- 22-


29/35

t he New Yor k Stat e Educat i on Depar t ment i ssue Ms. Bl ack a School

Di st r i ct Leader Cer t i f i cat e pur suant t o Educat i on Law 3003( 3)

so t hat she coul d serve as Chancel l or . R. 43- 44. Havi ng

sel ect ed Ms. Bl ack as t he most sui t abl e per son t o be the next

Chancel l or , t he Ci t y had a cl ear i nt er est i n havi ng Commi ssi oner

St ei ner i ssue t he r equest ed cer t i f i cat e so that she coul d ser ve

i n t hat r ol e.

As wi t h al l hi gh- l evel gover nment appoi nt ees, however ,

i t was under st ood t hat Ms. Bl ack s qual i f i cat i ons woul d be

subj ect t o scr ut i ny and debate. Because Ms. Bl ack di d not meet

t he el i gi bi l i t y r equi r ement s f or appoi nt ment as Chancel l or and

t hus, i n or der f or her t o ser ve as Chancel l or , t he Ci t y was

r equi r ed t o obt ai n a School Di st r i ct Leader Cer t i f i cat e f r om t he

St at e on her behal f , t he Ci t y ant i ci pat ed t hat t her e woul d be

concer ns r ai sed whi ch, i f not addr essed, mi ght j eopar di ze t he

Mayor s sel ect i on. R. 43- 44. I ndeed, t he concer ns r ai sed about

Ms. Bl ack s backgr ound and qual i f i cat i ons f ol l owi ng her

appoi nt ment wer e wel l - publ i ci zed and a mat t er of publ i c r ecor d.

Thus, i n t he weeks af t er Ms. Bl ack was sel ect ed - - a per i od t hat

i ncl udes t he r el evant t i me f or pet i t i oner s FOI L request t he

Ci t y had an i nt er est i n addr essi ng t hese concer ns, and di d so

t hr ough i t s communi cat i on and out r each ef f or t s desi gned t o

cl ar i f y and expound on Ms. Bl ack s cr edent i al s and t o addr ess

any concer ns about her qual i f i cat i ons so as t o ensur e t he

- 23-


30/35

success of her candi dacy. See R. 46. Ms. Bl ack i ndi sput abl y

shar ed t hi s i nt er est and act ed i n f ur t her ance and suppor t of t he

Ci t y s goal i n t hi s r egar d.

As par t of t hese ef f or t s, Ms. Bl ack, Ci t y st af f and/ or

Hear st Cor por at i on st af f assi gned t o assi st Ms. Bl ack i n her

t r ansi t i on t o Ci t y government communi cat ed wi t h each ot her

t hough emai l about t he pr epar at i on of t he request t o

Commi ssi oner St ei ner f or a School Di st r i ct Leader Cer t i f i cat e

f or Ms. Bl ack, r esponses t o r out i ne quer i es, and out r each

pl anni ng t o t he communi t y. R. 44. These emai l s i ncl uded

di scussi ons concer ni ng cl ar i f i cat i on of Ms. Bl ack s backgr ound,

di scussi ons rel at ed t o cont act s wi t h var i ous i ndi vi dual s

r egar di ng Ms. Bl ack s sel ect i on, and dr af t s of t he l et t er t o be

sent t o Commi ssi oner St ei ner . See i d.

Si gni f i cant l y, none of t he r esponsi ve document s

cont ai ns: st at i st i cal or f actual t abul at i ons or dat a;

i nst r ucti ons t o st af f t hat af f ect t he publ i c; or a f i nal agency

pol i cy or det er mi nat i on. R. 46. Wher e none of t he except i ons

set f or t h i n Publ i c Of f i cer Law 87( 2) ( g) appl i es, t he

r esponsi ve document s - - emai l s exchanged bet ween t he Ci t y and

Ms. Bl ack - - are i nt r a- agency document s and may be wi t hhel d f r om

di scl osur e pur suant t o Publ i c Of f i cer s Law 87( 2) ( g) .

I n sum, t he i nt r a- agency exempt i on r ecogni zes t hat

"ef f i ci ent gover nment oper at i on requi r es open di scussi ons among

- 24-


31/35

al l gover nment pol i cy maker s and advi sor s, whet her t hose gi vi ng

advi ce ar e of f i ci al l y par t of t he agency or ar e sol i ci t ed t o

gi ve advi ce onl y f or speci f i c pr oj ect s". Mat t er of Sea Cr est

Const r . Corp. , 82 A. D. 2d at 549. Here, where t he communi cat i ons

wi t h Ms. Bl ack ar e pr e- deci si onal del i ber at i ve communi cat i ons,

pr epar ed t o assi st t he Ci t y i n car r yi ng out i t s f unct i on of

obt ai ni ng t he School Di st r i ct Leader Cer t i f i cat e t o f aci l i t at e

t he smoot h t r ansi t i on of gover nment , t hese r ecor ds ar e exempt

f r om di scl osur e under Publ i c Of f i cer Law 87( 2) ( g) . See Kheel

v. Ravi t ch, 93 A. D. 2d at 429.

CONCLUSION

THE ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT

SHOULD BE REVERSED AND THE

PETITION SHOULD BE DISMISSED.

Respect f ul l y Submi t t ed,

MI CHAEL A. CARDOZOCorporat i on Counsel ,At t or ney f or Respondent - Appel l ant .

By:

SUSAN PAULSON

FRANCI S F. CAPUTO,J EFFREY S. DANTOWI TZ,SUSAN PAULSON,

Of Counsel .

- 25-


32/35

- 26-

PRINTING SPECIFICATIONS STATEMENT

Thi s br i ef was prepar ed wi t h Mi cr osof t Wor d 2003,

usi ng Cour i er New 12. Accor di ng t o t he af orement i oned

pr ocessi ng syst em, t he ent i r e br i ef , i ncl udi ng por t i ons t hat may

be excl uded f r om t he wor d count pur suant t o 22 N. Y. C. R. R.

600. 10( d) ( 1) ( i ) , cont ai ns 6, 479 wor ds.

Dat ed: New Yor k, New Yor kJ ul y 9, 2012

MI CHAEL A. CARDOZO

Cor por at i on Counsel of t heCi t y of New Yor k

Respondent - Appel l antBy: Susan Paul sonAssi st ant Cor por at i on Counsel100 Chur ch St r eetNew Yor k, New Yor k 10007


33/35

PRE-ARGUMENT STATEMENT IN LIEU OF CPLR 5531

APPELLATE DI VI SI ON OF THE SUPREME COURT

FI RST J UDI CI AL DEPARTMENT- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

SERGI O HERNANDEZ,

Pet i t i oner - Respondent ,

- agai nst -

THE OFFI CE OF THE MAYOR OF THE CI TY OFNEW YORK,

Respondent - Appel l ant .- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

I ndex No. : 106213/ 11

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, t hat t he Respondent - Appel l ant , f or

i t s pr e- ar gument st at ement , al l eges as f ol l ows:

1. The f ul l names of t he or i gi nal par t i es, and t he

names, addr esses and t el ephone numbers of counsel f or t he

par t i es, ar e as set f or t h bel ow:

Pet i t i oner - Respondent : SERGI O HERNANDEZ

At t or neys f orPet i t i oner - Respondent : Schl am St one & Dol an LLP

26 Br oadway, 19t h

Fl oorNew Yor k, New Yor k 10004( 212) 344- 5400


34/35

Respondent - Appel l ant : THE OFFI CE OF THE MAYOR OF THE CI TY OFNEW YORK

At t or neys f or

Respondent - Appel l ant : Mi chael A. CardozoCor por at i on Counsel of t he Ci t y of NewYor k100 Chur ch St r eetNew Yor k, New Yor k 10007( 212) 788- 1010

2. I n t hi s pr oceedi ng commenced under Ar t i cl e 78 of

t he CPLR, Pet i t i oner - Respondent chal l enged t he det er mi nat i on of

t he Respondent - Appel l ant t o deny Pet i t i oner - Appel l ant access t o

document s r equest ed pur suant t o the New Yor k Fr eedom of

I nf or mat i on Law, N. Y. Pub. Of f . Law 84, et seq.

3. Appeal i s t aken f r om t hat por t i on of t he Or der

and J udgment of J ust i ce Al i ce Schl esi nger dat ed November 23,

2011 and ent er ed i n t he of f i ce of t he Cl er k of New Yor k Count y

on December 6, 2011, pur suant t o whi ch J ust i ce Schl esi nger f ound

t hat t he subj ect document s were not exempt as i nt er - agency or

i nt r a- agency r ecor ds under N. Y. Pub. Of f . Law 87( 2) ( g) and, on

t hat basi s, gr ant ed t he Pet i t i on and di r ect ed Respondent -

Appel l ant t o r el ease t he subj ect r ecor ds.

4. The gr ounds f or appeal ar e t hat t he Cour t er r ed

i n f i ndi ng t hat ( i ) Cat hl een P. Bl ack was not act i ng as an agent

of , or consul t ant t o, t he Ci t y of New Yor k or Mayor Mi chael

Bl oomberg af t er she had been appoi nt ed t o serve as Chancel l or of


35/35

t he Ci t y school di st r i ct but pr i or t o her assumi ng t hat

posi t i on; ( i i ) t he nat ur e of t he communi cat i ons cont ai ned i n t he

r equest ed document s was not del i ber at i ve; and ( i i i ) on t hese

gr ounds t hat subj ect r ecords wer e not exempt as i nt er - agency or

i nt r a- agency r ecor ds under N. Y. Pub. Of f . Law 87( 2) ( g) .

Dat ed: New Yor k, New Yor kDecember 7, 2011

MI CHAEL A. CARDOZOCor por at i on Counsel of t he Ci t y ofNew Yor kAt t orney f or Respondent - Appel l ant100 Chur ch St r eetNew Yor k, New Yor k 10007( 212) 788- 1010

By:

Leonar d Koerner

Chi ef , Appeal s Di vi si on