## Facts

- M. Farbman & Sons, Inc., a contractor, performed plumbing work for New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation (HHC) at Harlem Hospital under a 1977 contract.
- The project finished later than planned, and a dispute over additional costs was anticipated.
- Before filing suit, Farbman submitted a FOIL request seeking 14 broad categories of records relating to the project.
- HHC denied the request as overly broad and inconsistent with FOIL’s objectives; HHC’s president affirmed on administrative appeal.
- Farbman commenced an Article 78 proceeding to compel disclosure under FOIL.
- HHC argued FOIL could not be used to obtain material for litigation and asserted exemptions, including the inter-agency/intra-agency materials exemption under Public Officers Law § 87(2)(g).
- Special Term ordered an in camera inspection of contested documents to evaluate claimed exemptions.
- While the FOIL proceeding was pending, Farbman filed a notice of claim and commenced a breach of contract action against HHC arising from the same dispute.
- The Appellate Division dismissed the Article 78 petition, treating pending litigation and CPLR article 31 discovery as a categorical bar to FOIL.
- The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.

## Issues

1. Whether a FOIL requester’s status as a current or potential litigant against the agency affects the requester’s right of access to agency records.
2. Whether CPLR article 31 operates as a blanket exemption allowing an agency to deny FOIL requests when litigation is pending or anticipated.
3. Whether a court may proceed with document-by-document review, including in camera inspection, to test claimed FOIL exemptions notwithstanding related litigation.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division and reinstated Special Term’s order directing an in camera inspection.
- The court held that access to agency records under FOIL is not affected by pending or potential litigation between the requester and the agency.
- The court rejected the view that CPLR article 31 is a blanket exemption from FOIL.
- The court remitted for continued processing of the FOIL dispute through exemption-specific review.

## Legal Principles

- FOIL confers a presumptive right of public access to agency records; exemptions in Public Officers Law § 87(2) are narrowly construed.
- An agency bears the burden of demonstrating that requested materials fall within a statutory exemption.
- FOIL rights do not depend on the requester’s identity, status, motive, or need; litigants have the same FOIL rights as any other member of the public.
- CPLR article 31 discovery provisions are not an enumerated FOIL exemption and cannot categorically bar FOIL disclosure.
- Courts may use in camera inspection to determine whether particular records fall within FOIL exemptions, including § 87(2)(g) for inter-agency or intra-agency materials.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeals held that FOIL remains available even when the requester is engaged in, or anticipates, litigation against the agency, and that agencies must justify nondisclosure under specific statutory exemptions rather than relying on CPLR discovery rules as a categorical bar.


M. Farbman & Sons, Inc. v. N.Y.C. Health & Hosps. Corp., 62 N.Y.2d 75 (1984)