Ny herpes dating
David, Delma(4), De Luca, De Maria, De Oliviera, Dobranski, Ennis, Faulkner, Foley, Frick, Gannett (1), Gannett Newspaper v. of Monroe, Glantz, Gorenitsyn, Grajales, James, Hoyer, Legal Aid (2000), Loevy & Loevy, Lynch, Newcomer v. Nassau County Police Department, Office of the Attorney General, Kelly v. Bus Top, New York News (1) and (3), New York Times (2), Petix, Pittari, Planned Parenthood, Pride, Radio City, Ragusa, Rainbow News (2), Rebello, Redmon, Rourke v. City of Albany, Cook, Daily Gazette, Dunnigan, Estrada, Feerick, Ferrara, Gallogy, Gannett (1), Hearst Corporation et al., Hearst Corp. Hynes, Hanig, Harris, Haudenosaunee, Hawley, Hopkins, Geames, Inner City (1), Irwin v Onondaga County Resource Recovery Agency, J. and John Doe, Johnson (4), Joint Journal, Laveck, Lipsman (1), Massaro, Messina, Mac Hacek, Malowsky (1) and (2), Mc Geehan, Mineo, Myers, New York Civil Liberties Union v.David, Scott (1), Sideri, Young (1), Gerbe, Lochner, Spencer, People v. NYS Department of Correctional Services, Chittenden, Goldstein, Hanig, Hassig, Hodges, Mantica, Miller (1), Newton (2), New York Environmental Law, New York Times, Pratt, Rockland County, Short, John P, Rold (1), Williams, Argentieri, Baez, Beyah, Village of Brockport, Butler, Canty v. New York City Police Department, New York Committee for Occupational Safety & Health v.Substantial competitive injury would likely flow to agency if agency were required to disclose negotiated terms, pricing details, boundary rights, pricing and costs, where agency negotiates in the electric power spot and futures market, is engaged in actual competition in the wholesale and retail electric markets, and has demonstrated that such information is otherwise unavailable.Substantial competitive injury would likely flow to submitting commercial entity if agency were to disclose cost confidential proprietary and pricing information, and project term sheet, which would unfairly benefit competitors, giving them an unfair competitive edge in the market place.Acme Bus Corp., Alderson, Bancks, Beechwood, Beyah, Village of Brockport, Browning-Ferris, Canandaigua, Castle House Development Corp. City of New York Police Department (2), Catskill Alliance Heritage Alliance, Inc. Office of the Governor, Century House, Corvetti, Cross-Sound, Davidoff, Daily News L.P., Dealy-Doe-Eyes Maddux, Delvecchio Family, Ehrich, Fenstermaker, Gallogy, Gannett v. Dist., Glens Falls, Grace, Gray, Hearst Corporation v. of Transportation, Niagara Environmental, New York Civil Liberties Union v.Dinallo, Bahnken, Bello, Belth (1) and (2), Belth v. O'Keefe, Sunset, Syracuse & Oswego, Troy Sand & Gravel, Urbach, Verizon v. Teacher sought to enjoin District from disclosing any portion of settlement agreement pursuant to which charges of misconduct had been settled, citing lower court decision in La Rocca, which has since been modified.Muhl (2), Catskill, Cross-Sound, Encore (2), First, Garvey, Geostow, Gray, Hearst, Herald Co. Court held that any confidentiality agreement in conflict with FOIL would be void as against public policy, that there is no blanket exception in the FOIL regarding personnel files, that the settlement is not an "employment history", that the agreement "is not information in which petitioner has any reasonable expectation of privacy where the agreement contains the teacher's admission to much of the misconduct charged", that the agreement is "tantamount to a final agency determination." See La Rocca, Geneva Printing, Buffalo Evening News.
New York Police Department, Whitfield, Almodovar, Argentieri, Benedict, Bernstein, Canandaigua, Carnevale, Carty, CAT ASI, Chambers, Coleman, Couch, Council of Regulated Adult Liquor Licenses, Cosgrove, Covington, Dickman, Doe, Flower, Floyd, Held, Town of Hempstead, Irving, Jacoby, Jamison, Jefferson, Jones v. New York State Teacher’s Retirement System, Joint, Krauss, New York Teachers, New York Veterans, Police Benevolent Association of New York, Inc.(2)Allen Group, Bannon, Bellamy(1), Bellamy (2), Brodie, Brownell, Chatham, DJL Restaurant, Erie Boulevard, Gannett Newspaper v. Of Monroe, Hameed, Humane Society, Johnson (3), Marrone, Metts, New York Civil Liberties Union, Ragusa, Rainbow News, Smith v. of Public Works, Stengel, Town of Waterford, Tuck-It-Away, Waterford v. of Environmental Conservation, West Harlem, White v.
Calabrese, Police Benevolent Association of New York, Inc.(2) , Seelig, C. Bennett, South Shore Press Inc., Taylor, Toledo, Wagstaffe v. City of New York Police Department, Office of the Attorney General, Irving, Lockheed Martin, Markowitz, Newman, NYC Off Track Betting, New York Racing (2001), New York Racing (2008), New York Regional, NYS Electric, Niagara Mohawk (1) and (2), City of Oswego, Passino, Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine v. Strojnowski, Capital Newspapers (4), Carnevale (1), Carnevale (2), Chebere, Cornell, De Luca, De Maria, De Oliviera, Faulkner, Fink, Gannett Newspaper v. ABC News was granted access to names and business addresses of the principals of check cashing businesses licensed by Banking Department; other aspects of license applications, such as residence addresses, were denied on the basis of §87(2)(f) in order to protect the lives and safety of applicants and their families.
David, Albany Custom Floors, Arrow Electronics, Aurelius, Aurelius Capital Mgt., LP v. Hogan, Pooler, Professional Standards, Ragusa, Sagaponack, Saratoga Harness Racing, Inc. Task Force on the Future of Off-Track Betting, Schenectady v. Current Law: §87(2)(f) Overturned agency's denial of a request for names and addresses of mink and fox farmers; Court agreed with opinion of COG advising that provisions concerning privacy can be asserted only with respect to personal information relating to natural persons and held that "the names and business addresses of individuals or entities engaged in animal farming for profit do not constitute information of a private nature, and this conclusion is not changed by the fact that a person's business address may also be the address of his or her residence." In related decision regarding Open Meetings Law, Appellate Division found that entity's powers and functions were derived from federal law and that, therefore, it was not subject to that statute; using same reasoning, it was held that the entity is not subject to Freedom of Information Law.
A request asking for record keeping and retention, policy guidelines and statistics pertaining to the surveillance of Muslim individuals, businesses, and organizations throughout New York City and surrounding areas is exempt from disclosure.
Such a request is exempt because it reveals sources and methods that, if revealed, could create a risk to the safety to officers and their sources.