In the Matter of Hassig v. New York State Department of Health
New York Court of Appeals
294 A.D.2d 781 (2002)
- Written by Haley Gintis, JD
Facts
In 1999 Donald L. Hassig (plaintiff) submitted a request to the New York State Department of Health (the department) (defendant) under the state’s Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) to receive certain reports from the state’s cancer registry. Hassig, as a member of St. Lawrence Environmental Action, requested records concerning cancer diagnoses and deaths for all age groups within particular zip codes to establish a cancer-prevention program. The department denied Hassig’s request on the ground that the records were exempt from disclosure under the state’s Public Health Law and federal legislation pursuant to the National Program of Cancer Registries. The department explained that disclosing the records could lead to the identification of individual cancer patients, particularly children who were the only children diagnosed with cancer in a particular area. Hassig’s administrative appeal was unsuccessful, and he filed an action in a New York trial court against the department for violating the FOIL. The FOIL, which was similar to the federal Freedom of Information Act, mandated certain government disclosures. The trial court dismissed the case. Hassig appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Crew, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 834,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,600 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.