FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by Final Decision
Susan Block,
Complainant
against Docket #FIC 94-345
Real Estate Commission, State of Connecticut, Department of
Consumer Protection and New Haven Police Department,
Respondents June 28, 1995
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on May 11, 1995, at which time the complainant and the respondent Real Estate Commission ("REC") appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint. The respondent New Haven Police Department ("NHPD") failed to appear.
After consideration of the entire record, the following facts are found and conclusions of law are reached:
1. The respondents are public agencies within the meaning of 1-18a(a), G.S.
2. By letter dated September 27, 1994 and filed with the Commission on September 30, 1994, and supplemented by an undated letter filed with the Commission on January 6, 1995, the complainant appealed to the Commission alleging that the respondents denied her requests for access to copies of certain records.
3. It is found that sometime during late August and early September, 1994, the complainant requested the arrest records of Fred Maretz, Ronald Rohinsky and James Brownstein from the respondent NHPD.
4. It is found that the respondent NHPD denied the complainant's request on September 2, 1994, indicating that the social security numbers of the subjects of the arrest records were necessary in order for her to obtain any information.
5. It is found that on September 6, 1994, the complainant again contacted the respondent NHPD and requested a specific reason for the denial of her records request.
Docket #FIC 94-345 Page 2
6. It is found that the respondent NHPD has not responded to complainant's letter of September 6, 1994.
7. It is found that the requested arrest records are public records within the meaning of 1-19(a), G.S.
8. It is concluded that the respondent NHPD violated 1-19(a), G.S., when it failed to provide the complainant with access to copies of the requested arrest records.
9. With respect to the complaint brought against the respondent REC, it is found that by letter dated July 26, 1994, the complainant requested from the respondent REC any information concerning the business practices of Fred Maretz and Attorney James Brownstein.
10. It is found that by letter dated August 10, 1994, the complainant then requested from the respondent REC information on Fred Maretz, Ronald Rohinsky and Attorney James Brownstein "seperately [sic] and in any combination."
11. It is found that by letter dated September 6, 1994, the complainant wrote to the respondent REC seeking a response to her August 10, 1994 letter.
12. It is found that by letter dated September 12, 1994, the respondent REC informed the complainant that Fred Maretz and James Brownstein were licensed and in good standing but that it had no record of Ronald Rohinsky as a licensed real estate person.
13. It is found that by letter dated September 20, 1994, the complainant renewed her records request, this time requesting information concerning Fred Maretz, James Brownstein and Ronald Rohinsky, "seperately [sic] and together from 1970 to 1990."
14. It is found that by letter dated October 18, 1994, the respondent REC provided the complainant with additional information regarding James Brownstein and Fred Maretz.
15. At the hearing in this matter, the respondent REC acknowledged that certain records do exist in its files as to Ronald Rohinsky.
16. In addition, at the hearing in this matter, the respondent REC indicated its willingness to assist the complainant, and agreed to provide her with access to copies of all records in its files concerning Fred Maretz, Ronald Rohinsky and James Brownstein.
17. It is concluded that the respondent REC violated 1-19(a), G.S., when it failed to provide the complainant with
Docket #FIC 94-345 Page 3
prompt access to copies of all records maintained in its files, which are responsive to her records request.
The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:
1. The respondent New Haven Police Department shall forthwith provide the complainant with copies of the requested arrest records of James Brownstein, Fred Maretz and Ronald Rohinsky, free of charge.
2. The respondent Real Estate Commission shall forthwith provide the complainant with copies of all records concerning Fred Maretz, Ronald Rohinsky and James Brownstein, free of charge.
3. Henceforth, the respondents New Haven Police Department and Real Estate Commission shall strictly comply with the requirements of 1-19(a), G.S.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of June 28, 1995.
Elizabeth A. Leifert
Acting Clerk of the Commission
Docket #FIC 94-345 Page 4
PURSUANT TO SECTION 4-180(c), G.S. THE FOLLOWING ARE THE NAMES OF EACH PARTY AND THE MOST RECENT MAILING ADDRESS, PROVIDED TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION, OF THE PARTIES OR THEIR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE.
THE PARTIES TO THIS CONTESTED CASE ARE:
Ms. Susan Block
18G Brocketts Point Rd.
Branford, CT 06405
Real Estate Commission
State of Connecticut, Department of Consumer Protection
c/o Megan O'Neill, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General
110 Sherman Street
Hartford, CT 06105
Lt. Gerald Antunes
New Haven Police Department
1 Union Avenue
New Haven, CT 06519
Elizabeth A. Leifert
Acting Clerk of the Commission