Opinion
Index No. 105839/10
12-06-2010
THE EMPIRE CENTER FOR NEW YORK STATE POLICY, A Project of the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, Inc., Petitioner, v. NEW YORK CITY POLICE PENSION FUND, Respondent.
:
In this Article 78 proceeding, petitioner seeks an order directing full compliance with its Freedom of Information Law request, made pursuant to Public Officers Law § 89(4)(b), for information in connection with all retired members of respondent, the New York City Police Pension Fund (that is, all retired New York City police officers receiving a pension).
By letter dated January 22, 2010, petitioner sought the following information for each retiree: name; retirement system registration number; last employer; gross retirement benefits for calendar years 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009; indication of which system the retiree belongs to; retirement date; and date of commencement of retirement system membership.
The Pension Fund provided all of the information in its possession (it contends there is no "retirement system registration number") except for the names of the retirees. Petitioner appealed the decision not to provide the names, and the appeal was denied in a letter dated April 1, 2010, on the grounds that POL § 89(7) exempts the names of beneficiaries of public employees' retirement systems, and that the disclosure of the names would endanger the retirees, who are former police officers.
Respondent first contends that petitioner lacks standing as a self-described "project," but petitioner does have standing as a non-profit corporation organized and existing under the laws of New York. Respondent also contends that petitioner is barred by the four-month statute of limitations pertaining to Article 78 proceedings (CPLR 217[1]), arguing that its 2010 request is merely duplicative of its 2009 request. However, petitioner's seeking an additional year's information in its 2010 request is sufficient to establish a that it is non-duplicative.
Public Officers Law § 84 is a Legislative declaration that the public "should have access to the records of government in accordance with the provisions of this article." Such access is not unrestricted. For example, POL § 87 provides that agencies may deny access where the information would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy (§ 87[2][b]) or could endanger the life or safety of any person (§ 87[2][b]).
POL § 89(7) further provides that the name and address of a "beneficiary" of a public employees' retirement system should not be disclosed. In New York Veteran Police Assn. v New York City Police Dept. Article I Pension Fund, 61 NY2d 659, 660 (1983), the Court of Appeals found that this provision applies to "all retirees of the New York City Police Department currently receiving pensions and annuities."
In addition, the argument that § 87(2)(b) applies is persuasive (endangering of life or safety). Considering the ease with which internet searches using only a name can identify the address associated with it, and the common perception that retired police officers possess firearms, the possibility of such retirees becoming the target of burglaries is significant.
Accordingly, it is
ADJUDGED that the petition is denied and the proceeding is dismissed.
Dated: DEC 06 2010
/s/_________
CAROL E. HUFF
J.S.C.