A New York appellate court recently ruled on a case involving a Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) request made by Aron Law, PLLC against the Town of Hempstead. The court's decision affects how public records are accessed and the awarding of attorney's fees in such cases.
The case, Matter of Aron Law, PLLC v. Town of Hempstead, was decided on October 14, 2026, under docket number 2025-01613. The dispute arose when Aron Law, a law firm located in Brooklyn, New York, sought records related to the Town's School Bus Stop Arm Program. The court's ruling clarifies the responsibilities of public agencies in responding to FOIL requests and the implications for legal costs incurred by petitioners.
The parties involved in this case are Aron Law, PLLC, represented by attorneys Joseph H. Aron and Aviva Y. Horowitz, and the Town of Hempstead, represented by the law firm Rosenberg Calica Birney Liebman Ross LLP, including attorneys Joshua M. Liebman, Peter J. Clines, and Peter J. Williams. The case began when Aron Law submitted a FOIL request on June 1, 2023, asking for seven categories of records concerning the training of Town technicians in the implementation of the School Bus Stop Arm Program.
The Town of Hempstead acknowledged the request but only provided a master agreement with a vendor, BusPatrol America, LLC, on June 27, 2023. Unsatisfied with the limited response, Aron Law appealed the Town's decision. Subsequently, the firm filed a proceeding under CPLR article 78 to compel the Town to produce the requested records and to seek an award for attorney's fees and litigation costs.
The Supreme Court of Nassau County ruled on January 16, 2025, granting the Town's motion to dismiss the petition. The court concluded that Aron Law had not exhausted its administrative remedies, as it had not received a complete response to its FOIL request. However, Aron Law appealed this decision, arguing that the Town had failed to provide adequate information regarding the remaining records and that it had effectively exhausted its administrative remedies.
The appellate court modified the Supreme Court's ruling. The judges, including Mark C. Dillon, Deborah A. Dowling, Janice A. Taylor, and James P. McCormack, determined that the Supreme Court had erred in concluding that Aron Law failed to exhaust its administrative remedies. The court stated, "The petitioner alleged that it received a single document from the Town...with no further instructions or information regarding the other parts of the petitioner's FOIL request." This finding indicated that Aron Law had indeed made a valid appeal based on the Town's inadequate response.
Furthermore, the appellate court noted that the Town had provided additional records during the litigation, which supported Aron Law's claim that it had substantially prevailed in its FOIL request. The court emphasized the importance of public accountability and transparency in government operations, stating, "To promote open government and public accountability, FOIL imposes a broad duty on government [agencies] to make [their] records available to the public."
As a result, the court ruled that the Supreme Court should have allowed Aron Law's request for an award of attorney's fees and litigation costs. The appellate court stated, "The Supreme Court should have denied that branch of the Town's motion which was to dismiss that branch of the petition which was for an award of attorneys' fees and litigation costs and should have granted that branch of the petition." The case was remitted back to the Supreme Court for a determination of the appropriate amount of attorney's fees and costs.
This ruling has significant implications for future FOIL requests and the responsibilities of public agencies. It reinforces the notion that agencies must respond adequately and timely to requests for records. Failure to do so could result in the agency being liable for attorney's fees if the requester substantially prevails in court.
The decision also highlights the importance of transparency in government operations. By allowing for the recovery of attorney's fees, the court aims to encourage public agencies to comply with FOIL requirements and promote openness in government dealings.
Moving forward, this ruling may set a precedent for similar cases where individuals or organizations seek access to public records. It emphasizes that agencies must not only provide requested documents but also communicate effectively about the status of those requests.
As for what’s next, it remains to be seen whether the Town of Hempstead will appeal this decision. The appellate court's ruling could influence how other municipalities handle FOIL requests in the future. There are currently no related cases pending that have been mentioned in the court filing.