By Michele Evans / NYweeklyRecord.com / Date: 8/10/2026
Category: Accountability / Public Records / Government Transparency / New York Courts
NEW YORK CITY, NY –
New York City’s Law Department cannot deny a public-records request on one ground and then defend that denial in court with a different, unsupported excuse, an appeals court has ruled.
The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed an order requiring the department to process a Freedom of Information Law request submitted by Jimmy Wagner in January 2024. The court also awarded costs against the city agency.
Wagner asked for agency records but did not identify a particular employee who had custody of them. The Law Department denied the request on that basis, saying it could not conduct a search without the name of the records custodian.
Wagner challenged the denial in an Article 78 proceeding. Once in court, the Law Department shifted its position. It argued that responding would be unreasonably burdensome, a different justification from the one given when the agency rejected the request.
The appellate panel refused to uphold the denial on that new ground. Under New York administrative-law rules, courts review the reasons an agency actually gave when it made its decision. An agency generally cannot rescue a defective determination by inventing a new rationale after a lawsuit begins.
The judges also found that the Law Department failed to submit evidence from anyone with personal knowledge showing that the requested records could not be located with reasonable effort. Assertions from counsel were not enough to establish that a search was impossible or unduly burdensome.
That evidentiary gap is central to FOIL accountability. Public agencies control their own filing systems, search tools and retention practices. If an agency claims that locating records is too difficult, it must explain the search burden with competent evidence, not a bare conclusion.
The ruling does not decide that every document Wagner requested must be released without review. The Law Department may still evaluate responsive records and invoke a valid statutory exemption where one applies. What it cannot do is block the request because the requester did not know which city employee held the files, then swap in an unsupported burden claim during litigation.
For everyday New Yorkers, the decision reinforces a basic rule of open government: people requesting public records are not required to understand an agency’s internal custody map. Agencies must make a good-faith effort to find responsive records and must stand behind the reasons they use when denying access.
The court’s order leaves the original judgment in place, with costs. The practical message is blunt. A denial needs a lawful basis, and that basis needs evidence when challenged.
Leave a Reply