prostitution in syracuse ny

Also held that documents prepared by counsel acting as such, materials uniquely the product of a lawyers learning and professional skills is privileged but data received while investigation on behalf of the client is not.
Goord, VanNess, Final Determination Century House, Miller (3 Lee Enterprises, Inc., Miracle Mile, New York 1 News, Financial Disclosure Statement Archdeacon, Gannett Suburban, Firearm Licenses and Applications New York Times Format, Choice of Belth (2 Brownstone.
The request for records was denied.Steiner, Supreme Court, Albany County, January 18, 2011- The inter-agency and intra-agency exemption applies to records that are deliberative, including those prepared by an sex and love addicts anonymous meetings houston outside consultant at the behest of an agency as part of the agencys deliberative process.Matter of Luongo.Held that there is no such thing as a re-appeal, if an agency fails to respond to an appeal within ten business days of its receipt it is considered a constructive denial and an Article 78 proceeding must be commenced within four months.Held, however, that even if an Internal Affairs Bureau file constitutes a personnel record pertaining to a police officer subject to 50-a of the Civil Rights Law, it remains subject to in camera review to determine the extent to which it is discoverable.City of Albany, Supreme Court, Albany County, September 1, 1998 - Involved request for photographs taken of an individual by law enforcement personnel to document the individual's appearance after claim that he had been beaten by police.See also Key Names and addresses of respondent's charter customers (clients) were properly denied pursuant to 87(2 d).New York Racing Association.Town of Carmel, Tenure Anonymous, Buffalo Evening News (1 Elentuck, Hendrick Hudson, Herald (4 LaRocca, Time Limit for Responses Almodovar, Bernstein, Brownell, Brusco, CAT ASI, Coleman, Corvetti, Daily Racing Form, Davidoff, DeCorse, Floyd-Frigerio, Held, Housing Works, Hudson, Inner City (2 Kalish, Kirshtein.Bruno Silver, Greene.New York State Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control, App.Bloomberg, New York Public Interest, NYS Rifle, O'Shaughnessy, Reubens, Rold (2 Wattenmaker, White, Criminal History Records Bagley, Bennett, Cap.The evidence suggesting they will suffer a competitive disadvantage is theoretical at best." Held that "To meet its burden, the party seeking exemption must present specific, persuasive evidence that disclosure will cause it to suffer a competitive injury; it cannot merely rest upon a speculative.City of New York, Supreme Court, New York County, August 5, 2011 - Petitioners attorney barred from making duplicative requests which (a) were resolved through earlier Article 78 proceeding (collateral estoppel) or (b) were never appealed from (failure to exhaust administrative remedies).Court held promise of confidentiality is irrelevant to rights of access and ordered disclosed.
"Bail set at 1M for woman accused of extorting money from ex-NY Gov.
2013) Case dismissed under res judicata; where records were previously sought and determined exempt in an Article 78 proceedings between the same parties.

Request involved records, minutes recommendations, etc.Kelly, 55 AD3d, 863 NYS2d 439 (2008) - Request for list, in digital format, of names and addresses of all pistol licensees in New York City.See also Paul Smiths College ; Hansen Crisci.Mills (2 Verizon.Current Law: 87(2 e iii) Boghosian.Held that suit was time barred, that four month statute of limitations expired.Appellate Division reversed lower court and found that Catskill did not meet its burden of proving that records at issue fell squarely within the exception.New York City Police Department, 96 NY2d 873, 730 NYS2d 768 (2001) - Issue involved certification by agency that records could not be found.Governor of New York from 20Spitzer worked as an attorney in private practice with several New York law firms before becoming attorney general, where he worked for six years as a prosecutor with the office of the Manhattan district attorney.NYS Division of Human Rights, Supreme Court, New York County, nylj, May 12, 1995 - City agency sought to quash subpoena duces tecum issued by state agency compelling disclosure of records obtained in the course of investigation.Agency successfully contended under 506, 510 and 511 of cplr that venue should be changed from New York City to Albany.
The respondent disclosed some of the requested documents but claimed the rest could either not be located, or were exempt based on a state or federal statute or as inter-agency/intra-agency material.