IN THE MATTER OF FRANK J. RUSSO, JR., APPELLANT, v. NASSAU COUNTY COMMUNITY
COLLEGE, ET AL., RESPONDENTS, STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK ET AL.,
INTERVENORS- RESPONDENTS.
81 N.Y.2d 690, 623 N.E.2d 15, 603 N.Y.S.2d 294 (1993).
October 14, 1993
2 No. 161 (1993 NY Int. 189)
Decided October 14, 1993
_________________________________________________________________
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
in the New York Reports.
Robert Van Der Waag, for Appellant.
Gregg M. Mashberg, for Respondents.
Susan B. Blum, for intervenor-respondent SUNY.
Katherine A. Levine, for intervenor-respondent Federation.
Student Press Law Center, Inc. et al.; Association of Community
College Trustees; American Association of University Professors; and
New York Civil Liberties Union et al., amici curiae.
_________________________________________________________________
SMITH, J.:
The issue here is whether a film and filmstrips used by a professor in
a course given in a public college constitute "agency records" subject
to FOIL disclosure. We hold that the items sought are subject to
disclosure under FOIL. Accordingly, we reverse the order of the
Appellate Division.
Respondent Nassau County Community College is chartered under
Education Law article 126. Nassau County sponsors the institution
which is also partially funded by special County appropriations. The
College's operations, however, are governed by its own Board of
Trustees (see, Education Law §§ 6304, 6306, 6310).
Petitioner, a Nassau County resident, requested that the College
produce, for his inspection, a specified film and film strips used in
a course entitled "Family Life and Human Sexuality" and listed as "PED
251." Petitioner made several written requests for access to the
course film entitled "Sexual Intercourse" pursuant to New York's
Freedom of Information Law (Public Officers Law §§ 84-90). Sean A.
Fanelli, the President of the College, and the College attorney both
denied petitioner's requests, indicating that because the film sought
was part of a course curriculum, it was not a "record" as contemplated
SNIPPETS:
COLLEGE, ET AL., RESPONDENTS, STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK ET AL., INTERVENORS- RESPONDENTS.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York
Katherine A. Levine, for intervenor-respondent Federation.
Student Press Law Center, Inc. et al.; Association of Community College Trustees; American
The issue here is whether a film and filmstrips used by a professor in a course given in a
we reverse the order of the Appellate Division.
Respondent Nassau County Community College is chartered under Education Law article 126.
The College's operations, however, are governed by its own Board of Trustees (see, Education
Petitioner made several written requests for access to the course film entitled "Sexual
Fanelli denied petitioner's subsequent appeals ) and referred the matter to the Committee on
The Executive Director of the Committee responded to petitioner by letter concluding that the
That court directed the College "forthwith to permit the petitioner to inspect the."
The Appellate Division reversed, declining to reach the intra/inter-agency/final policy and
In Governor Wilson's Approval Memorandum to the FOIL bills, he stressed the view that open
at 252; Public Officers Law § 84, supra; see also, Matter of Prisoners' Legal Servs.
73 NY2d 26; Matter of Washington Post Co. v New York State Ins.
The focus of our inquiry under FOIL in that case, as here, was the underlying principle of
Public Officers Law section 86defines an "agency" as "any * * * governmental entity
Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, and the
|
