See something? Report it to the City.

Told officers he was raped, twice. The Department says no complaint was ever filed.

Asked: Any record that a sexual assault a man described to officers, in 2012 and again in 2019, was recorded, referred, or followed by a rape-crisis notice, a private interview room, or a forensic exam.

“Record does not exist as no complaint was ever filed”

“[He] was not the victim in either of the requested cases.”

“Card/pamphlet provided when applicable”

The record: The same 73 pages the Department produced record the disclosure in the Department's own paperwork: a 2012 investigation follow-up report, 2019 witness depositions, and two 2019 oral-admission forms. Executive Law §642(2-a) requires a private interview setting and written rape-crisis notice for victims of these crimes; the Department's own General Order 463 says the same. Every one of those items came back "no record exists".

A "no record" answer with no search behind it on paper

Asked: For anything not produced, the certification Public Officers Law §89(3)(a) requires: who searched, which systems, what terms, and whether anything was destroyed.

“Does not exist”

The record: The statute requires a certification that the record cannot be found "after diligent search." None of the four details requested was provided. The determination itself was handwritten; a request to receive future responses in typed form, as a disability accommodation, was sent Sept 23, 2026.

A $715 redaction charge that held every request until the state weighed in

Asked: Body-camera video, plus the Department's crisis-response policies and training records.

“This hourly rate is approximately $55/hour at the Records Sergeant rate of pay(approximately $715.00). We would request 50% of that cost up front to ensure you will follow through to retrieve the records.”

“It is common for people to make these requests and hours of time is spent to fulfill the request, and they never show up so it ends up being valuable time wasted on our end.”

“Due to the nature of the records requested, the requisite skill to prepare and properly redact said record, the use of the Records Seargeant is the lowest paid agency employee capable of preparing said record.”

“As the exact amount of time required to prepare the records for your request cannot be determined, the City chooses to have you pre-pay a reasonable portion of the expected fee up front.”

“At this time, none of your other requests have been addressed, nor will they be unless the deposit amount is made, or if a further appeal decision is made in your favor.”

The record: The City's own Records Access Policy (Resolution 31 of 2022) says an agency "shall not charge a fee" for "review of the content of requested records to determine the extent to which records must be disclosed or may be withheld." Redaction is that review. The same determination says "the citywide policy governs" when a department policy conflicts. The statute it cites, "Public Officers Law section 87(c)", does not exist; the quoted words are from §87(1)(c)(i). On Sept 18, after speaking with the state Committee on Open Government, the Deputy Chief wrote that "the redaction of any material is not chargeable under FOIL" and that "no deposit is needed." For five weeks, nothing but the $18.25 historical files had moved.

A new date the Department says "falls outside what the law states"

Asked: The records, or the written reason and new date certain Public Officers Law §89(3)(a) requires once a promised date passes.

“If you need an exact date, I will give you November 20th, with all intentions to have your request fulfilled prior to that date. It is understood that this falls outside what the law states, but due to your voluminous and continued requests and other duties that must be fulfilled that are of greater importance, your request will be fulfilled when I am able to do so. Take it or leave it.”

“Part of the delay will be to sort through your Ai generated requests to determine what is actually a request and what is extra nonsense that the Ai added to your messages.”

“I don't care.”

“I will not release records on a rolling basis.”

The record: The Department's Aug 12 response set twenty business days, which ran to Sept 10. That date passed with no production and no written statement of reasons. FOIL has no exception for volume or competing duties, and it does not ask how a request was drafted, only that the record be "reasonably described" (§89(3)(a)).

Paper files, copied and redacted by hand, released only after a check cleared

Asked: A searchable PDF by email.

“Those case files were retrieved in paper format, copied/printed to create a new document, and then redacted manually.”

“Said records can be emailed as you are requesting, however only after you remit payment.”

The record: Filed Aug 6, 2026. Determined Aug 31 (17 business days). The $18.25 (73 pages at 25 cents) was paid by check, receipted Sept 22, and the production arrived by email that day as an unsearchable copier scan.

Denials announced in advance, with no reasons given

Asked: For anything withheld, the specific exemption and the harm it prevents, which Public Officers Law §87(2) requires record by record.

“We will not dictate, identify, or explain each subparagraph related to redactions or denials individually for each request, nor will we provide a breakdown of each as you requested.”

“Those that are not available which you have requested, are not available for a reason and will not be provided for reasons including the reveal of criminal investigative techniques or procedures.”

“These appeals are not ripe.”

The record: Public Officers Law §87(2): a denial "shall not be based solely on the category or type of such record and shall be valid only when there is a particularized and specific justification." The Aug 12 email refused that justification before a single record was reviewed; the appeal was then called premature.