The New York State Court of Appeals ruled unanimously on Dec. 15 that the Empire State Development Corporation must hand over documents it has refused to disclose for two years.
Now, the recipients say that these documents could potentially turn the tide of a different case in their favor.
On Dec. 3, the New York State Supreme Court, Appellate Division, ruled that eminent domain — the process by which the state can seize private property for “public use” in exchange for market-rate compensation — is illegal for Columbia’s 17-acre campus in Manhattanville. That ruling also faulted the state’s blight study of the area, which was used to determine whether the neighborhood is in an economic condition beyond potential for natural repair.
And on Dec. 15, Tuck-it-Away Self-Storage owner Nick Sprayregen — one of two remaining Manhattanville property owners that have not yet struck deals with the University — received news of a further court decision in his favor.
The Court of Appeals ruled that, under the Freedom of Information Law, or FOIL, ESDC must disclose documents regarding a 2004 agreement between the ESDC and Columbia on seeking eminent domain for the Manhattanville campus.
The West Harlem Business Group, an unincorporated association of businesses, made several requests under FOIL for these specific documents. The ESDC made a large portion of the agreement available, but had continually refused to disclose 7 of these documents, arguing that they are exempt based on the Public Officers Law, which grants exemption from FOIL when disclosure “would impair present or imminent contract awards or collective bargaining negotiations.”
But Sprayregen and his lawyer, Norman Siegel, challenged the ESDC’s right to withhold these remaining documents, and the court on Dec. 15 unanimously agreed with them.
The Court of Appeals decision noted that “this litigation could have been avoided, or significantly limited, had ESDC in the first instance complied with the dictates of FOIL.” It added that ESDC gave no explanation for the denial of these particular documents, beyond citing the language of the Public Officers Law.
“This, without more, constituted a failure by ESDC to ‘fully explain in writing’ to WHBG ‘the reasons for further denial’ as required by FOIL,” the court ruled, adding that the WHBG had a right to bring suit to either obtain the documents or receive an explanation for the ESDC’s denial.
“Only then, in the context of this lawsuit, did ESDC claim that the documents sought were exempt under Public Officers Law,” the document said, adding that the “access officer’s initial determination was superficial, at best.”
ESDC spokesperson Warner Johnston defended the initial refusal to release the documents in an e-mail, writing, “ESDC made public over 8,000 pages of documents before it affirmed the General Project Plan for this Project. Only seven documents, totaling 30 pages, which were withheld by ESDC as exempt under FOIL, were the subject of this litigation.”
He added, “This was a transparent process and none of these documents affects the merits of ESDC’s findings.”
Since the Court of Appeals ruling, Siegel and Sprayregen have been reviewing the documents. They noted recently that one particular document has raised some questions that will require further research, and this research will likely provide answers to their questions within the next week.
“We have identified some questions that we have to research as a result of the seven documents which could impact on our case in a positive way for us,” Siegel said. “But we haven’t completed the research yet so I can’t specifically say what that is.”
Sprayregen added, “There are certain documents in there that shed additional light on the processes and methodology used by the state and Columbia in this condemnation,” and they could potentially explain “the processes that the state used in the condemnation and whether they did something improper.”
Yet even if these documents do ultimately contain information that can strengthen their argument, it is still uncertain whether they could be taken into consideration at the Court of Appeals hearing for the eminent domain case in the spring.
The record for this case was closed on Oct. 30, 2008, the point at which no additional evidence could be submitted to the courts. Because the court had ruled that they should have had those documents from the outset, Siegel said that if they wish to use the documents, they will likely have to ask the court to open up the record. Siegel said that they are researching this process as well.
Columbia officials declined to comment on the ruling, citing the University’s policy of not commenting on litigations.
Comments
We're looking for comments that are interesting and substantial. If your comments are excessively self-promotional or obnoxious you will be banned from commenting. Consult the comment FAQ and legal terms.