After a surprise anti-eminent domain victory for Tuck-it-Away Self-Storage just over a week ago, the New York State Court of Appeals ruled unanimously on Tuesday that the Empire State Development Corporation must hand over documents it has refused to disclose for two years.
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 Tuesday, Tuck-it-Away 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 ESDC must disclose under the Freedom of Information Law, or FOIL, 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 has continually refused to disclose 7 of these documents, arguing that they are exempt based on the Public Officer’s 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 Tuesday unanimously agreed with them.
The Court of Appeals decision noted, “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 Officer’s 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.
This information should have been available in the administrative appeals process, according to the decision.
“Only then, in the context of this lawsuit, did ESDC claim that the documents sought were exempt under Public Officers Law … —and not … as originally claimed—evidencing that the access officer’s initial determination was superficial, at best,” the decision continued.
Sprayregen said in an interview after the decision that he was very curious to see what was actually in the documents. “It is either a smoking gun that shows another instance of collusion and corruption,” he said, “or it is absolutely nothing, in which case, why did they waste everyone’s time if there was nothing to hide?” He predicted that the documents would become available within a few weeks.
He said, “I can only think that there must be something that is damaging in these documents.”
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 7 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.”
Johnston said that the decision adds unnecessary burdens under FOIL: “The heightened standard articulated by the Court today to support FOIL exemption imposes substantial additional burdens, at a time of severe fiscal constraint, on this and other agencies which will result in additional time and expense in responding to the multiplicity of expansive FOIL requests regularly received with respect to large, complex projects.”
But Siegel, Sprayregen’s lawyer, said in an interview that the decision establishes an important precedent for government agencies: “It sends a signal to the ESDC that if they don’t comply with the law, they are going to be held accountable.”
He added, “FOIL matters. It is significant. But laws are only significant, if people exercise their rights under the law.”
Johnston said that, despite their concerns with the new standard established from the decision, “ESDC continues to believe in the importance of transparency in government and will release the 7 documents in question, in compliance with today’s decision.”
Columbia officials declined to comment on the ruling, citing the University’s policy of not commenting on litigations.
COMMENTS
Comments will be moderated in accordance with our comment policy