NYP Holdings v NYC Dept of Social Services, or Why I Was Wrong About The Withholding Of Shelter Addresses
The Courts have spoken
Following yesterday’s post about the DSS’s new practice of redacting addresses from CEQR filings related to shelters, I obtained an advisory opinion from the New York State Committee On Open Government (COOG).
In short, the 1st Appellate Division of New York said so. Persuasively, I might add, at least to someone like me who is yet to take a Statutory Interpretation class.
Quoting COOG’s advisory opinion, and in turn the decision itself
In NYP Holdings, Inc. v. New York City Dept. of Social Services, 2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 02013 (1st Dep’t. 2025), the court held concerning records of the New York City Department of Social Services (DSS) that ‘[t]he text of Social Services Law § 136(1) prohibiting disclosure of public benefit recipients’ “names or addresses” plainly prohibits disclosure of addresses alone, even without corresponding names’ and that ‘[a] shelter constitutes the “address” of its occupants.’ The court furthermore concluded that “DSS’s disclosure of shelter addresses in other contexts, whether erroneous or in furtherance of separate legal obligations, does not authorize the agency to violate the plain meaning of Social Services Law § 136 by disclosing the addresses in response to a FOIL request.”
This case arose because the New York Post made a FOIL request for the addresses of all DSS shelters, and they were denied on this basis.
This was decided in April 2025, shortly before DSS began its wholesale redaction of shelter addresses from CEQR filings. (there technically was one in late 2024, but all others were in May 2025 onward following this decision)
It is my error for not uncovering that case myself, for which I apologize.
Open Threads
For the purposes of open government statutes, DSS is both allowed and required to redact shelter addresses from public filings, FOIL responses, and so on. Whether that is sound as a matter of policy is certainly debatable, but the legal framework is pretty clear.
What I have not been able to find is anything on whether this is sufficient for their obligations under state and city environmental review laws and how that may affect challenges to those reviews.
The CEQR filings from DSS specify the zip code and Community District of the shelter, but not the address. Anyone could deduce the address with some careful work, as I have done, but it is not reasonable to expect people to do so.
Is an Environmental Assessment Statement that only discloses the broader area in which an action may occur sufficient for SEQRA / CEQR?
Does the statute of limitations for a challenge to CEQR Negative Declaration start when the determination is made, or only after when the address is publicly known?
Maybe estoppel against the government since their own conduct (redacting addresses) prevents timely challenges, even though that conduct is required by statute?
Perhaps a due process issue as it is structurally impossible for a person who may have standing to challenge the agency determination to be apprised of it?
Shrug. I think we’ll have to wait on the courts to sort those issues out.