## Facts

- Cornell University, a private institution, operates several New York “statutory colleges” created by statute, funded in part by the State, and subject to certain state oversight.
- David A. Stoll, counsel to a Cornell professor disciplined for sexual harassment, submitted a request under New York’s Freedom of Information Law (FOIL).
- The request sought complaints and related documents generated under Cornell’s Campus Code of Conduct involving administrators, faculty, or students of the statutory colleges.
- The statutory colleges denied the request.
- Stoll filed a CPLR article 78 proceeding to compel disclosure, asserting that Cornell (as operator of the statutory colleges) was subject to FOIL or held records on behalf of a FOIL-covered state entity.

## Issues

1. Whether Cornell, when operating the statutory colleges, is an “agency” subject to FOIL with respect to records created in Campus Code disciplinary matters.
2. Whether Campus Code complaints and findings involving statutory-college personnel are “records” of a state agency that must be disclosed under FOIL.

## Decision

- The New York Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division and reinstated Supreme Court’s dismissal of the article 78 petition.
- The court held that the requested Campus Code disciplinary materials were not FOIL-accessible “records” of a state “agency.”
- Although the statutory colleges have significant state ties (creation by statute, funding, ownership of facilities, and oversight), Cornell retained authority over the relevant disciplinary function.
- Because the request targeted Cornell’s internal disciplinary system, the records were treated as Cornell’s, not as records of SUNY or another state agency.

## Legal Principles

- FOIL’s disclosure obligations apply to records of an “agency,” generally meaning a governmental entity, and the inquiry turns on whether the entity was acting in a governmental capacity for the function that produced the records.
- State funding, oversight, or ownership interests do not automatically convert a private institution’s records into agency records subject to FOIL.
- Where a statute leaves control of a particular function to a private operator (here, internal discipline under a university code), documents generated in that function are not necessarily “kept or held” as state-agency records for FOIL purposes.
- FOIL coverage for hybrid public-private arrangements may be function-specific and record-specific rather than categorical.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeals held that FOIL did not compel disclosure of Campus Code disciplinary complaints and related documents tied to Cornell’s statutory colleges because, for that disciplinary function, Cornell was not acting as a state agency and the requested materials were not state-agency records.


In re Stoll v. N.Y. State Coll. of Veterinary Med. at Cornell Univ., 94 N.Y.2d 162 (1999)