Church of Scientology of New York v. State
Cases that cite this one
57 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Matter of Newsday, LLC v. Nassau County Police Dept. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2023)
- Madera v. Elmont Public Library (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- Madera v. Elmont Public Library (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- In re Radio City Music Hall Productions, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1986)
- Washington Post Co. v. New York State Insurance Department (N.Y. 1984)
- Hawkins v. Kurlander (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1983)
- Matter of Wagner v. New York City Dept. of Health & Mental Hygiene (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2026)
- Matter of Gannett Co., Inc. v. Town of Greenburgh Police Dept. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2024)
- Matter of Cohen v. Alois (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2022)
- Matter of Aron Law, PLLC v. New York City Fire Dept. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2021)
- Matter of Jewish Press, Inc. v. New York City Dept. of Investigation (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2021)
- Matter of Jewish Press, Inc. v. New York City Dept. of Investigation (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2021)
- Matter of Pamela A. Madeiros v. New York State Education Department (N.Y. 2017)
- New York Times Co. v. New York State Executive Chamber (New York Supreme Court 2017)
- Matter of Livson v. Town of Greenburgh (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
- Gannett Satellite Information Network, Inc. v. County of Putnam (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
- Matter of Laveck v. Village Board of Trustees of the Village of Lansing (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
- Global Companies v. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (New York Supreme Court 2016)
- Matter of Friedman v. Rice (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
- Villalobos v. New York City Fire Department (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
- Villalobos v. New York City Fire Department (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
- Grabell v. New York City Police Department (New York Supreme Court 2014)
- Rose v. Albany County District Attorney's Office (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- Rose v. Albany County District Attorney's Office (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- Dilworth v. Westchester County Department of Correction (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
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
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.
The record on appeal is wholly insufficient to sustain the refusal to disclose the materials sought by petitioner under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act (Public Officers Law, art 6). In support of the denial of access the *908 State officials have tendered only references to sections, subdivisions and subparagraphs of the applicable statute and conclusory characterizations of the records sought to be withheld. There is no tender of any factual basis on which to determine whether the materials sought either fell outside the scope of mandated disclosure under former section 88 (L 1974, ch 578, § 2; ch 579, § 2; ch 580, § 1, eff Sept. 1, 1974) or come within the exceptions specified in subdivision 2 of present section 87 of the Public Officers Law (L 1977, ch 933, § 1, eff Jan. 1, 1978). Nor is there any justification for remittal for in camera inspection. The parties resisting disclosure made no request for such inspection. Indeed, the record contains no predicate on which an application therefor might have been based.
As to the Attorney-General’s contention that the article 78 proceeding against him was barred by the Statute of Limitations, it suffices to note that the period of limitations ran from the date on which petitioner received notice of the denial of its appeal under subdivision 4 of section 89 of the Public Officers Law (8 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, NY Civ Prac, par 7804.02, pp 78-106).
Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler and Fuchsberg concur in memorandum.
Order affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.