Portfolio Media, Inc. v. New York State Off. of Ct. Admin.

Portfolio Media, Inc. v New York State Off. of Ct. Admin. 2025 NY Slip Op 32102(U) June 12, 2025 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 159592/2022 Judge: Lisa S. Headley Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication.

INDEX NO. T59592/2022 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 71 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/12/2025

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY PRESENT: HON. LISA S. H EA DEL Y PART 28 Just;ce ------------~H·------~~---------------~--- ---------------- X INDEX NO. 15959212 02 2 PORTFOLIO MEDIA, I NC Plaintiff, • V. MOTrON DATE 06/20/2024

NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF COURT MOTION SEQ. NO. 001 ADMINISTRATION, Defendant. DECISION + ORDER ON MOT,ON

The fof1owing e-filed documents. listed by NYSCEF document number (Moticn 001} 2, 17. 18. 19. 20, 21, 22, 23, 24.25.26,27. 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37. 38. 43, 44, 45,46,47.48.49, SO, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58,59.60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65. 66,67 were res d on th is motion to/for _ _ _ __A_RTICLE 78 { BODY OR OFFICERj

Procedural H i~ton-· On K ove:nbcr 8. 2022, petitioner, Portfolio l\-lcdia, lnc.} (hereinart~r, "Petitioner") filed this Article 7R pctit ion for j u<l id al review of the Ncw York State O ffi ~e of Comt Ad ministration's (hereinafter "OCA" or ·'Respondent") failure to respond to the Petitioner's. Freedom or· In1ormution Law ("FOIL~') request for documents from the Office of the In'.Sptctor Genera! ("OIG''). Respondent fikd a ~nJ:s.s-motion to dismiss the petition on th~ basis that the Article 7H petition is timc-ham~J, plmmant to CPLR §217(/j. On August 24, 2023, this Court is~ued a Decision and Order, \vhich granted the Re~pon<lent ·~cross-motion to dismiss the proceeding. (See, NYSCEF Doc. No. 3 8). Petitioner f¹. led a11 appeal, which was gramcd. On appeal, the Suprem~ Court Appellate Diviston, First 11~p~rtment issued an Order on March 19, 2024. revtr;(;ing tl,~s Court's Decision and Order and rdnstating the petition. (See, },/}SCEF Doc. 1\-'o. 4 J). On \·fay 13, 2024. the Respondent l"1led an Answer and Opposition to the Petition seeking 1he FOIL n~quests. (Sec, A'Y.\'CEF fJoc ...Vos . ../.] and .:/-4). Petitioner Jile<l a. Reply I'vkmorandum of" Lnv in further support nf' the> Vtri fied Petition. (See, il/YSCF.F Doc. }/o. 65). Then~ on Junj; 18, 2024, the Pciitioner Iikd an Amended ~otiec of Peli Lion. (See, NYSCLF Doc. ,Vo. 66). . Portfolio )Iedia Inc. 's PetiHon for Judkia] H.n•jew of FOIL Request Denials The PctEtioncr is th~ pubhshcr for Lav..-3 60, \vhic h reports on the Nev,,- York St cite Court System. I\-lr. Frank Runyeon ("Mr. Runyeon") is a reponer with Law360. On April 11, 2022, ~1r. Runyeon submitted a FOil, request seeking four categories of documents l:oncemi ng the operations of the Office of the Inspector General ("OICi-"). The request included:

'· l) Any and all reports~ data, tabulations~ Hsting,'I', databases, statistics or rccord.s in their native electronic format (xis, P OF~ emni], etc.) regarding tht proccs:1oing, in,·e~tigation and/or outcome of com plaints by the Office of the Inspector General for New York State Courts since ,lanual")' 1 1 2010 -· including but not lim~tcd to the Oflice

159 5B 2/2022 PORTFOl.l O MEDIA, INC vs. NEW YO R.K STATE OFFICE OF COURT Page 1 of 6 ADMINISTRATION Moti oo No. 001

INDEX NO. 159592/2022 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 71 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/12/2025

INDEX NO. 159592/2022 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 71 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/12/2025

INDEX NO. 159592/2022 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 71 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/12/2025

INDEX NO. 159592/2022 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 71 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/12/2025

INDEX NO. 159592/2022 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 71 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/12/2025

infrmnation, include apprnx1inately 12 internal email exchanges bct\vccn members of the OIG leadership team based 011 the intra-agency exemption. ··A denial of access shall 1101 be based soldy on the category or· type of such reconl and shal I be vulid only \Vhcn there is a pa1ticularizcd and speci fie justification for such Jeni al.,. See, Public Officers Law §87(2)(g). ~-The intra-agency ~nd inter~agency exemption-; allow m1 agency to withhold re~or<ls prepared by an 1nd~pt>ndtm outside consullant, so long c1s. the ag.cncy has retained that consuhant, and it functions as the agency's employee or ~gent."' S'ee, Weinstock •'· New York State Urb. Dei-'. Corp., 81 T\.--fisc. 3d 977, 985 86, 199 N. Y. S.3d 794, 802 (N. Y. Sup. Ct. 2023 ). [Citations omitted j. ·'The exemption encourages ·p~opJe within an ag-2ncy to exchm1ge opinions, advice and criticism freely and frankly. \.vithout the chining prospect of public disclosure'." Id. "Thus, records that rell e~L ·opinions, ideas~ or advice exchanged a~ part of the consul tali v~ or deli bcrat ivc pro ce s~ of go ve rnrn cnt deci ~1 on m (1k ing' arc ex cm pt from Ji sc lo sure ... in c:ontrast to factual dala or objective informmion, \vhich must be disclo~ed." Id. al 803. Herc, the FOIL Request H4 pertains to the internal discussions nf the OIG budget, which do not squarely f~ll vvithin any of the above-mentioned categories under Public O_(ficers rmv §X.7(lj(gi. Accordingly, the pctil1oner·s request for disclo.:;ure 0f FOIL Request #4, including the undi siJosed e-mails that contain '·factual data or ohjectiv~ informatjon", is granted.

Atc.ordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that th~ portion of the petition compelling disclosure or FOJT.. Requests #² and #³ is mnot for Lhe re(lsons stated herein; und it is further ORDF.RED that the portion of· the petition compeHing disclosure of H)lL Requ~st #1 is G RA)JTF.D IN PART~ and to the extent that identi f'ying information~ incl wJing names and addresses, in the ··complc.1.jnt~, interview notes, \vilness statement:-\ in vestig<ltive memoranda, audio recordings, rcporLs, ~use files·' must be redacted; and it is further ORDF:RED that the petition r~quest for disclo~ure o(· FOIL Request #⁴~ is GRANTED to the ex[enL that the petitioner shal I be entitkd to in fi.1rn1~tion sought in undi:-;dosed e•mails that contain only "factual data or objective infonnation''; and it is further ORDERED that \.Vithin 30 days of entry, Petitioner s.hall _'jerve a copy of this <le~ision/ order upon the Respondent \Vith notice of entry; and it is funher ORDERED that any requested rdicf sought not expressly addressed herein ha~ noneth~less been considered.

This constitutes the Decision and Ord~T of the Court.

6/1212025 DATE HON. LISA S. HEADLEY

~ Cl-r-cCK ONE: GASE DISPOSi=O NON-FIN.AL DISP DS ITIO N

GFlA NTED □ Di=NIED GRANii;;O IN PART □ OTHER APPUCA TlO N: SETlL.i: ORDER SUB MIT O~OcR

CtiECK IF APPROPR!A TE:: INCLUOES TFi:ANSFER/REASSIGN FmUCIARY APPOINTMENT

W:59212022. PORTFOLIO MEDIA, IMC '\IS. NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF COURT Page 6 of 6 ADM IN IS TRATION Motion No. {I 01

[* 6] 6 of 6

Footnotes

[1] of 6 [* 1] of the Managing Inspector General for Bi~ Mutters, Office of the \fanaging Inspector {Jcncral fc)r Fiduciary Appointment~, or other element~ of the 01 Cr\ Otfo.:e. This would irn;h.1<le but is not limited ·10 ~my c(1se-spccific complaint~, investigative reports, and determinations as \vel I a.s any annual re pons, caseload summaries, su bject-martcr•spcci fie, other pcriodil: or any other kind of report or summary. Fol' example, responsive documents could include any annual reports on the number of any category of complainb received, invj;stigated and substantiated or un~ubstilntiated. ("}"()IL rcq Ltcst 1-1- l '"); 2) Any rosters, lists or directories of empJoyees who worked for the Office of Inspector General or \vho were employed by the OI C, since Ja11 i.mry 1, 2010 -- including hut not limil~<l to the Office of the J\·1anaging rn~pec:tor General for Bias \1attcn;) Office or· the Managing. inspector Cienen1l r·or Fiduciar:y Appointments) or the genen1l OIG office. Annual empln:vee directortesfor rhe re!ernnt _veaFs would he fine. ("FOIL request ftT): 3) Any operations or poHcy manuab (~)r the ()Jfo.·e of the Inspector General or its units (Office of the i'vlanaging lnspecwr General for Bias Matters, Office or the \fanaging Inspector (Jcncral f<)r Fidudary Appointments) since January I, 2010. cFOIL request #3"); and 4) Any records related to funding or budget requests from the OIG,s office or its. units {Office of the Maniiging Inspector General for lJ.ias Maners, 0 ni ct' of' the Managing Jnspector General for Fiduciary Appointments) since fanuuI)· 1, 2010 . " er-OIL request #4'') . (.S'ee, Exhibir A, .\-'YSCAF Doc. ,Vo. 4). 1''0IL Reque;<,;t Timdinc The Ptti1ion~r contends that the Respondent~ OCA, foi le<l to grant, deny, or acknowledge n::ccipt or the April 11, 20221-'0lL request wiltiin five bu:sines~ days as required by Puhlic O_(lfcers !.aw §89(3J(l1j . On May 13. 2022, a month after the [OIL request \\'as made, fl..·1r. Runyeon appealed the constrnctive dj;nl~l of rhe reqllest as permitted under Public Ofjin::rs Law §89i3)(aj (''the Constructi v~ Deni a] of Appear'). Then. Mr. Runyeon alleged that OCA faikd again to grant or deny the Constructive Denial Appeal within ten business days as required by Puhlic ()jfit:ers !,{_m: §89(4)(a). Ilov,:evcr, on May 17, ~021, Rtspondent, OC\. ackno\vlcdged receipt of the April 11, 2022, [OIL re-quest: \Vithout responding to the Constructive Denial Appe'1l ii.led in May 2022. OCA replied that it would prnvid~ a ''status update" on or hd<Jre font 15, 2022. Then, on June 16, 2022, Rcs.pondenl, OCA, denied the Petitioner's FOH. r~quest in its entirety. On June 23, 2022, respondent OCA responded to the Petitioner'~ Con-;tructive Denial Appeal filed in \·fay 2022, and denie<l Lht' appeal as moot based upon 1he correspondence on June 16, '.W22, wherein respondent OCA denied the 1-" OIL rcq ucsL. On June 23. 2022_. I'v1r. Runyc{m then filed an appeal to OC A's .Tune 16, 2022 denial. Subsequently, on July 8, 2022. OCA granted, in pan, the petitioner's June ~3, 2022, appcaL OCA explained thm a :--:tatus update or a production of record \Vould be made within 20 days or that communication, and then on July 27, 2022, Respondent OCA produced some records. Sub:-;equently, J\1r. Runyc-un made inquiries aboul \vhether additional reccm.l~ v,,:ould be fori:hcoming, to which OC\ responded on August 5, 2022, with a "final rcspon~e" and cited the intrn-ag~ncy e>iception. and for the first time, the privacy ex~~ption. (Sec, Exhi/-Jit I. ,V}SCEF Doc. ,-Vo. I 2). On s~ptember 4. 2022, Mr. Runyeon filed an appeal orthe August 5, 2022 ••finul response." On Septemb~r 22, 2022, OCA responded to the appeal: and explained that pursuant to Public Ojjlcers Lau-' f.YR9(-I), Mr.. Runycon was not entitled to additional appeals of OCJ\'s ddennination 159592[2{]22 PORTFOLIO MEDlA, INC vs. NEW YORK STATE OFFICE; OF COURT Page 2 of 6 ADM IN IS TRA TIO N Motion No. 001

[2] of 6 [* 2] of the originaJ April 11, 2022 FOIL request. {See, F.xhibit K, NYSCl.!,'F Dnc. ,Vo. 1-1). Thereafter on t<ovemhcr 8, 202~, the Petitioner. Mr. Runyeon's employer, filed the ins1an1 Article 78 petition seeking an Order directing tbe Re~pon<lent to comply with petitioner·-, FOIL request and to prod uc~ the req ucstcd doc um en ts. DISCIJSSION Pu hffr Ojji cers Law § 8 7(2)(g) states: (2) Lach agency shatl, in u'.:corda.nce with its published rul~s, make available for public inspection ~rid copying all records~ except tho-;e records or portions 1hereol' lhal may be wi1hhcld pursuant to ih~ exceptions of rights of access appearing in this subdivision. A d~nial of access shall not be based solely on the category or type or such record and shall be valid only when there is a particularized and specific justification f<lr ~uc;h d~niaL Each agency shall, in accordance with its published rul~s, muke avail."! ble for public inspection and copyjng. all records. except that such agency may deny ru:::cess lo records or portions thereof thut: are inter-agency or intra-agency materials which are no1: (g) i. statistical or factual tabulations or daLa; ii. instructions to staff that affect the public; iii. final agency policy or determinations; iv. external audit-;, including but not fonite<l to audits performed by the comptroller and the f~deral governmeml. f' Public qtjicers Law§ 870)(g). The privacy exception delineated in Puhlic (!(/icers LITTI--' §89(2)(b) states: (b) An unwarranted invasion ot· personal privacy includes. but shall not he limi kd tu: i. disdosurc of crnploymt:nL, medical or credit hjstorics or pcr.:;onal ri;for~nces of applicants for employment; ii. di s.do_'jure of items involving. the medical or personal records of a client or patient in a mtdica.l facility; iii. sflle or release of li~ts of name::s und addresses jf such lists would be used for solicitation or fund-raising purp(x,es~ iv. disclosure or in fmmation of a personal nalllre when disclo&ure would rc=olllt in e~onornic or personal hardship to the subject party an<l such information is not relevant t0 the ,vork or the ag~ncy requesting or maintaining it; v. disclosure of information ut· a per~onal nature reported in conCidence to an agency and not relevant to the ordinary work of such agency; vi. information of a personal mlture contained in a workers 1 compensation record, except as provided by ~ection one hundred tcn•a of the v..'orkers' compensation law; vii. disclosure o !' electronic contact infonnati on, such as an c•mail address or a social network usernamc, thal has been collected from a laxpuyer under section one hundred four of' the reai property tax law; or viii. Ji sclosure of la\v en forcernent l'lrrest or booking photogrnphs of an indi vidua! unless public rd ease of such phowgraphs will scrw a ~pec1 fie law enforecmcnL purpose and dis.closure is not precluded hy any state or federal laws. Public q(/icers Law §89(2j(b). 15959-2/2022 PORTFOLIO MEDIA, jNC 11s. NEW YORK STATE OFFICE O~ COURT Page 3 of 6 ADM IN 1ST RATION MoHon No. 0{11

[3] of 6 [* 3] The Respondent suhmits, inter alia, the Affirmation of Brielle Christian, Deputy Counsd to OCA (see, ATL\'CEF Doc..Vo. 44); the Affirmmion of Kay-Ann Porter C.!111pbell (''the Campbell /\ffirmation), the Jnspector General of the OCA (see. ,\·'l~'5CEF Doc. No. 58)~ and the J\·kmoranJum or Lav,.: on behalf of Respondent (see ..\TXCEF Doc. }-lo. 59). ln opposition, Respondent asserts th.at the Pe1itioner already received record responses to FOIL Requ~st # 2, seeking inter alta rosten,;, li.~ts or directories of employees who wo rkcd for the Office of lnspeetor General. Specifically, on July 27. 2022, \he Re\pon~knl provided a response to H)IL Rey_ uesl #2, '·by prnviding a list of cum:nl OTG -Slaff tilled, ,"I list of all former OIG staff v.--i1h titles, including dates c-ach former staff m~rnbtr depmted from service, as well as the Adrninistrutive Order which created the OTO. Respondent aho claims that they responded ln FOIL Reque~t # 3, seeking inter a1ia, operatjon:s or polic~' manuals. Specifically, a~ to Rt'qu~sL #3, R~~pondent provided petitioner v,,:ith !he publicly available wcbstte for the OIG, whic:h contains information as to the operations of the OIG. Thcrcforc 1 the petition is moot as to categories 2 and 3. (See. NYSCFF fJcK. ,Vo. 59). Respondent aho cont~nd.s that they provided the following :-;ubslantive responses to ~--Ir. Runycon's FOIL Re4ue0h # 2 and# 3. FOIL REOl:EST #1 The intomrntion re4uested under FOIL request # t, includes c:omp]aints, interview notes, \:vitne.:;~ sW.Ltments, investigative memoranda~ audio rec.::ordings, reports, case files, and other r~lated records. Respondent argues that OCA i;-; justified in denying_ the FOlL Request 4I for po~l- invcstigatt vc memorandum and correspQnding_ case file-cl LH the H1as M alters LT nit, nnd Fiduciary .l\ppointmenls Cnit. Respondent submtts that lhe Pe Li lion er wus advised on August 5, 2022~ that uther than cas1.-:.spccific complaint.:;, investigutive reports. and determinations~ there \Vere no fldditional records 10 prm--,J~ in response to f OJL Request f. 1. The Respondent <ltt~nnined thflt aH of the- documents pertain1ng Lo FOJL R~quest # 1, and some pertaining to FOIL Request f.4 ,;,vcri.; withheld pursuanL lo the intra agency exception under Puhlic (?fjh:crs laH' § 87(2)(,r;)~ and the priva~y exception under Public Officer law § 89(2j(hj.Thus. the Respondent argues that th~ adm1nistrutive detenninritions of the FOIL Request are judicially revicwablc under C:P!.R //7803(3). which states that "[flhc only que~tion that may be raised in a proceeding under this article is whether a determcnmion wa-; mude in violation of lawful procedure, wa~ affec:t~d by an error of law or \\'as arh1trary and rnpricious or an abuse of dtscrr:tion, incl u<ling abuse of discretion as ro the rnea::;ure or mode of penalty or discipline imposed.·· Sf.,\ CPLR § 7803(3). The Rcspondcm ab:o urgues that the administrative detenninations .:ire protected by confidcntialtly provisions, and cettain requests arc nol available with the OIG. Specifically, the defendant suhmits th.it uccording to Fart 50 <tf ihe Rule,,· of the Chief JudRe and UCS Fmployee CoJ1duc1 Policies, tl1~ TX'.S ·s "confidentiality prnvi sion does not state tbat v,,itne~~ names, \.Yitness testimony, or nu mes of the subject of 1he invesLigntion \vould be made a vai luble to anyone within lCS or outside of UCS." Respondent also refer~nces 12 NYCRR Part 36 Appointments hy the Conrts, ,;,vhich state-, thut all investigations are confidentifll and remain \.vilh files maintained exclusivdy by tbc OJG, with access only to the OCA Counsel's office. In adJil1on, the Campbell A('firmation states that lhe OTG does not generate any audit reports and that \he Tnternal Audit Services is a separate- divis1on of'thc OCA. (See, .\TSCFF Doc No. 58). In opposition, Petitioner argues, inter alia. that the Court in reviewing the denial of a FOIL requeM must ·•presume that all records of a pllblic agency are open to pubtic insp~c.tion and copying"' and the agency ''bcar[s] the burden of showing thal the records faH squar~ly within an 15959-2/2022 PORTFOLIO MEDIA, lNC vs. NEW YORK STA TE OFFICE OF COURT Pag&4 of S ADM IN 1$T RATION Mohon No. 0{11

[4] of 6 [* 4] exemption to disdosure." Citing to }v'ew York Comm. For Occupational Safety & Health v. B!oomherg, 72 A.D.3d 153, 158 (1st Dcp't 201 O}. The Pet1tion~r asserts that the l·'OIL request is not limited to the records \vi thin 01 G's po:'isession, rather the request is directed to the Uni fi.ed Court System as a whole as to Re4ue<:>t #1. The undisclosed in frlm1ution sought under FOIL request #- I p~rtains lo complaints, interview notes, witn~.-:;s statements, investigative memoranda, audio recordings, reports, case files. and mher rel uted records The Petitioner contends that the inLra-agency exception docs not apply hec:~u~e the requested doc\lmcnts arc final agency Jeterminmions m1d are factual information~ neither of \.vhich arc subj eel 10 the exempLi cm. Tbe Petitioner further contends that at most, OCA ought to redact non-factual inJc.mnation, but the information sought is s.ubject to disc losln~. The question therefore is v,,:hethcr the invcqiga1i ve memorandum und the ca.se file qm:ilify hrr non-disclosure under the privacy exception. "Ca~e luw recognizes ,ei compelling. public interest in the .i ob performance nf puhl ic o 1·11 c.:iul ~ which, in most circumstances. ts found to outweigh the official\ persona! privacy interests.." See, e.g .• Mulgrew v. Bd ,f Edm;. (f City Sd1. Dist. cf City of }Vew York, 87 AD3d 506, 508 (1st Dept. 2011 }; see also, roc/rn..•ood 1.'. ,Vassau Cnry. Police nep'{, 78 Misc. 3d 1219(A). 185 J\.Y.S.3d 657 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2023). Public O[ficers Law §89(2)(h) provides that 1he agency may "delete identifying details when it makes r~c:ords available." Puh/ic qfjicf:'rs Lmv §89(2)(b). Herc. the Rc~pondent contends thut the information provided by witnesses and other persons inlcrview~d for an investigation arc subj cct to confidentiality. Respondent r·urtlit>r con tends that 010 also invcstjgatcs complaints again~l ih employees for a(.·Liun~ outside of the workplace, and that should not he subjec:t tl) disclo~ure under FOH ,. The Petitioner, on the other hand. contends that Lh~ privacy ~xception does not justif}r \vithholding the documents sought in their enl1rety. This Cou~t finds that FOJI. R~quesL #1 seeks some information that wnuld he covered under Fublic (!tficers l.uw }89(2)(b;, As ~uch. jnformation including, th~ disclosure of employment, medical or (;Ttdit histories or personal reference.:; of appl icanb for employment shall not be pem1itled for disclosure. id. Nonetheless) information :s,ought by the Petitioner, including the interview notes and investigative memoranda, must be redacted. Furthermore~ if redaction or the identifying information woul J ::-till violate the privacy exception undl::r Puhiic (?fficers Lmv .f89(2j(aj, the document:'i musl not be disclosed. See also, Beyah.-. (roord, 309 A.D.2d 1049, 1053, 766 N.Y.S.2d 222, 227 (3d Dcp"t ?003 ); 1/urris v. Cily University of New York, Baruch Coilege, 114 A.D.2d 805, 495 N.Y.S.2d 175 ( ls.t Dep't t 985). [Redaction of identifying names allowed \vhere deJetion \vould not impede petitioner's ability to compare hi:'i credentials to those or nL11~r professional employees hut would protect individuals tnvol vc<l from unwarranted invasion or Lheir pel'sonal privacy I, Ac{:ordingly, this Court finds thm the portion l)r the petition compelling disc lo sure of 1-'0lL Request # 1 is granted in part, and to the ex lent that identifying information, induding names and addres~~s, in the ··complaints. inLerviev,,r notes. witness :'itatements, investigative memoranda, audio l'ecordings. reports, rnse files" must be redacted. See, Public Officers Law f89(2j(b). FOIL REQUEST# 4 FOJT. Request f.4 seeks "[aJny records related to funding or budget requesh from the OIG ~ office or its units I, I" In opposition, the Respondent c lairns [t provided pc1itioner ,vith 1 apprnx1maLdy 54 pages of budgeL requests and workload analy-;e_'j," (See. }./YSCEF Doc ,Vo. Nat ~j34). Respondent also argues that OCA is justified in denying a portion of FOIL request #4, with respect to lhe intemaJ discussion of OIG budget requests. The Petitioner claims that the withheld 1595 92/2022 POR TFOl.10 ME DkA, INC vs. NEW YORKS TATE OFFICE Of COURT Page 5 ofG A DMI NIST RATION Moli on No. 001 [* 5] 5 of 6