Gannett Co. v. County of Monroe
Cases that cite this one
18 later published cases cite this decision.
- Daily News Publishing, Co. v. Government of the Virgin Islands (Supreme Court of The Virgin Islands 1992)
- Rushford v. Oneida-Herkimer Solid Waste Authority (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1995)
- LaRocca v. Board of Education of the Jericho Union Free School District (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1995)
- Gannett Co. v. City Clerk's Office (New York Supreme Court 1993)
- Guerrier v. Hernandez-Cuebas (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1991)
- Buffalo News v. Buffalo Municipal Housing Authority (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1990)
- Faulkner v. LeFevre (New York Supreme Court 1988)
- Capital Newspapers Division of the Hearst Corp. v. Burns (N.Y. 1986)
- Hopkins v. City of Buffalo (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1985)
- Capital Newspapers Division of Hearst Corp. v. Burns (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1985)
- Niagara Environmental Action v. City of Niagara Falls (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1984)
- Jordan v. Hammock (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1982)
- Gannett Co. v. James (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1982)
- Jordan v. Hammock (New York Supreme Court 1981)
- MATTER OF DOOLAN v. Boces (N.Y. 1979)
- Doolan v. Board of Cooperative Educational Services (N.Y. 1979)
- New York Teachers Pension Ass'n v. Teachers' Retirement System (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1979)
- New York Teachers Pension Ass'n v. Teachers' Retirement System (New York Supreme Court 1979)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
Order affirmed, without costs, on the opinion by Madam Justice M. Dolores Denman at the Appellate Division.
We note that in form this case reaches us on a motion to dismiss the petition under CPLR 7804 (subd [f]), and that no answer has yet been served by the county or its officers. Notwithstanding what might therefore be viewed as a procedural awkwardness, on argument before us counsel for all parties agreed that this should be disregarded and that we should proceed to dispose of the appeal on its substantive merits. Specifically, we have assumed, therefore, that the county could establish by competent proof that disclosure of the items sought by Gannett would result in personal or economic hardship to the terminated county employees within the meaning of section 88 (subd 3, par e) of the Public Officers Law. Such proof, in our view, would not alter the outcome because, as noted by Justice Denman, the exception in paragraph e is available only if there is both proof of such hardships and it is established that the records sought are not relevant or essential to the ordinary work of the agency or municipality. The latter branch of this conjunctive requirement cannot be met in this instance.
Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur; Judge Gabrielli taking no part.
Order affirmed, without costs, in a memorandum.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.