Village Settles FOIL Lawsuit

by Kathy Savolt -

At the end of the regular meeting of the Board of Trustees (BOT) on May 12, the BOT voted unanimously to accept a settlement offer in the matter of Goldstein v. Village of Mamaroneck.

Cindy Goldstein, a founder and editor of this publication, filed a lawsuit against the Village of Mamaroneck in January, 2021 after her Freedom of Information Law (FOIL)* request on August 25, 2020, was denied.  Her subsequent appeal to then Village Manager Barberio was also denied despite the fact that the Village had already gathered responsive documents but then refused to release them.

Excuses

One of the excuses offered by Barberio was that the Global Pandemic emergency orders required him to focus on other matters.  Barberio also dragged his feet when responding to Goldstein’s appeal of the FOIL denial which was due within 10 business days of receipt and ultimately took months.

Barberio went on to claim that it was “a Herculean task” to gather the requested records as the initial and cursory search of the Village’s database yielded 52,000 possible matches.

At one point, Goldstein was promised the gathered documents by December 18, 2020 but instead received a formal denial of the FOIL request in its entirety.  Goldstein felt she had no choice but to sue the Village to force them to comply with the law.  “It was clear to me that the Village administration at that time was specifically withholding documents because I was the person requesting them,” stated Goldstein.

Supreme Court Sides with Village

At the first round in court on June 10, 2021, Supreme Court Justice Neary denied Goldstein’s request for any documents.  His decision stated that her request did not “reasonably describe” them and that the documents were available online.  See HERE. On January 18, 2022, Goldstein appealed that decision to the Appellate Division to compel disclosure of the records and an award of attorneys’ fees and costs. 

Appellate Division Reverses

In their November 1, 2023 decision that reversed the lower court decision, the four judges at the Appellate Division rejected the Village’s description of the task as “Herculean” and wrote “Here, there is no evidence that, before denying the petitioner’s request in its entirety, the Village made any effort to work with her to more precisely define the information desired…” See HERE. They also stated that, “The Supreme Court additionally erred in determining, as a matter of law, that the petitioner had failed to reasonably describe the records sought.” 

Time to Settle?

Early in the proceedings and before significant legal fees had been incurred, Goldstein proposed a settlement whereby the Village would give her the documents and pay her attorney’s fees, and she would donate 100% of her fees back to the Village.  The BOT, then lead by Mayor Tom Murphy, rejected this offer evidently believing that they could win their case.

After the Appellate Division’s decision, either party could have continued the case and caused both sides to incur additional legal fees.  In April 2025, Goldstein and her attorney crafted a Settlement Agreement and proposed it to Spolzino.  The new BOT accepted the settlement offer at their May 12th meeting.  Before settlement negotiations began, the Village had paid Spolzino almost $24,000 to represent the Village in this matter. 

Terms of the Settlement

According to the settlement agreement (see HERE) Goldstein’s out-of-pocket legal fees were $36,222 and the Village is required to pay her the full amount.  Once the check clears, Goldstein will return half ($18,111) to the Village for a flood mitigation project chosen in consultation with Village Manager Kathleen Gill.  The Village has also provided her with the responsive documents they had gathered. 

Goldstein is pleased to have reached what she believes to be an equitable outcome.  She has another case against the Village of Mamaroneck regarding her participation as a member of the Planning Board on the Hampshire application.  That lawsuit is not seeking money damages but rather a reversal of what Goldstein calls “a very flawed decision by the former Ethics Board.”  That case has yet to be scheduled for oral arguments.

*The NYS Freedom of Information Law was enacted to ensure the public has access to government records and to promote accountability in government.  (See Public Officers Law HERE.