NYC must pay New York Times legal fees in freedom of information case

Listen to this article

A state Supreme Court Justice has ordered New York City officials to pay the New York Times Co. more than $44,000 in legal fees incurred by the newspaper to force the city to disclose documents under the state Freedom of Information Law (FOIL).

The New York Times Co. was asking for $66,839.66, but Justice Ta-Tanisha D. James ruled that a reasonable award was actually $44,222.36.

In August 2019, the New York Times filed an Article 78 petition seeking a review of a decision by the office of former New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio refusing to provide a copy of a letter sent to de Blasio by the Conflicts of Interest Board (COIB) regarding fundraising activities.

The mayor’s office claimed the letter was exempt from disclosure under the state FOIL.

In January 2020, the court granted the Article 78 petition and ruled the letter was not exempt. The mayor’s office was ordered to disclose all material sought in the New York Times’ FOIL request within 30 days.

The court also ruled that the New York Times “substantially prevailed” in the matter and therefore granted the New York Times application for attorney fees incurred to force the city’s compliance.

The mayor’s office appealed the ruling to the Appellate Division of state Supreme Court, First Department, which affirmed the decision that the records must be provided. The New York State Court of Appeals refused to hear the case.

The mayor’s office provided the records to the New York Times in December 2021.

The New York Times sought $65,672.39 for 125 hours of attorneys’ fees and $1,167.36 in other costs. The fees include work by four attorneys at hourly rates ranging from $424 to $689.

The New York Times argued that the fees and costs were reasonable because of the time and skill required to handle the case and because of the “experience, ability, and reputation” of the attorneys.

The New York Times attorneys argued that the amount is “not unreasonable given the complexity of the case and the amount of work that was required as a result.”

“This matter was not a routine FOIL proceeding, in as much as it presented a question of first impression. Though the answer was ultimately straightforward, considerable research and analysis was required,” according to James’s decision.

The appeals in the case “prolonged the litigation and resulted in the New York Times submitting five separate briefs in three courts and appearing for oral arguments before the Appellate Division,” according to the decision.

“Litigating this matter required research and analysis not normally required in cases with established precedent,” James wrote.

“Further, the mayor’s office’s attempts to appeal the decision granting the Article 78 required the New York Times to expend additional hours in responding to the motions for leave to appeal and appearing for oral arguments before the appellate court,” James wrote.

[email protected] / (585) 232-2035