Matter of Debnam v Metropolitan Transp. Auth.

Holding The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of the petition because the petitioner failed to exhaust administrative remedies by not properly submitting FOIL requests through the MTA’s designated channels. Additionally, the motion for default judgment was properly denied because it was filed while the MTA’s cross-motion to dismiss was still pending.

The court’s words

Petitioner's original FOIL request, submitted February 18, 2025, was appropriately denied and leave to amend was providently denied for failure to exhaust administrative remedies

2026 NY Slip Op 06196, at the official text

Those purported FOIL requests were not properly submitted to the MTA, which provides for submission of FOIL requests either through an online portal

2026 NY Slip Op 06196, at the official text

Supreme Court appropriately denied petitioner's motion for a default judgment, as he moved for relief while the MTA's cross-motion to dismiss was still pending

2026 NY Slip Op 06196, at the official text