Creates special proceedings for freedom of information law and open meetings law reviews; directs the chief administrator of the courts to establish a freedom of information law and open meetings law review program in the supreme court, whereby individuals may file a petition for review of a freedom of information law request or open meetings law claim.
Summary
This bill creates a new court-based review process in Supreme Court for disputes under New York’s Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) and Open Meetings Law (OML). It directs the chief administrator of the courts to establish a special review program, allows a requester who has already pursued the required administrative steps to file a petition, and sets out filing deadlines, notice requirements, and standardized petition forms. The bill also requires agencies and public bodies to inform requesters of this new review option and of their existing right to seek Article 78 judicial review.
The proposed process is designed to be informal and faster than traditional litigation. It provides for hearing officers, including non-lawyers or judicial hearing officers, to conduct de novo hearings, generally within 45 days, with remote or hybrid hearings where practicable. The hearing officer must issue a written decision within 30 days after the hearing, may order disclosure or correction of improper fee determinations, and may award limited costs up to the filing fee. The bill also preserves the ability to pursue Article 78 review and specifies that decisions under this article are not precedential.
Impact
The bill would amend the Public Officers Law by adding a new article establishing a separate special proceeding for FOIL and Open Meetings Law disputes. It would affect agencies subject to FOIL, public bodies subject to the Open Meetings Law, the Office of Court Administration, county clerks, and the New York State Committee on Open Government. It would create new procedural obligations for agencies to notify requesters of review rights, and it would add a new court-administered hearing track alongside existing administrative appeals and Article 78 proceedings.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee discussion or votes, the bill appears to be framed as a pro-transparency and access-to-government measure. Its structure suggests an intent to make enforcement of FOIL and Open Meetings Law rights more accessible, quicker, and less dependent on formal litigation. No contrary sentiment is documented in the provided materials, but the bill’s creation of a new court process and hearing system implies that implementation and administrative burden could be areas of concern.
Contention
The main points of potential contention are procedural and institutional. The bill creates a new layer of review that may be seen as duplicative of existing Article 78 litigation, and it requires the courts to administer a new hearing program, appoint hearing officers, and adopt new rules. Agencies and public bodies may object to the added notification duties, the burden-shifting at hearings, and the possibility of faster disclosure orders. On the other hand, transparency advocates are likely to support the bill because it lowers barriers for requesters by offering an informal, relatively low-cost forum and by allowing non-attorney participation and remote hearings.