Preview:

a1763-07.opn.html
N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1 to -13. The order further directed that "all other identifying information, including applicants' city of
origin and qualifier classifications, along with the classification key, shall remain." We affirm. "> Original
Wordprocessor Version
(NOTE: The status of this decision is Unpublished.)
The status of this decision is unpublished
Original Wordprocessor Version
This case can also be found at *CITE_PENDING*.
(NOTE: The status of this decision is unpublished.)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-1763-07T31763-07T3
IRENA PAPRANIKU,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CHERRY HILL TOWNSHIP,
Defendant-Respondent.
Submitted December 16, 2008 - Decided
Before Judges Parker and Yannotti.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Camden County, Docket
No. L-2871-07.
Jamie Epstein, attorney for appellant.
Lisa M. Kmiec, attorney for respondent.
PER CURIAM
Plaintiff Irena Papraniku appeals from an order entered on November 2, 2007 directing Cherry Hill Township
(Township) to provide plaintiff with a list of Section 8 applicants in which "the names and street addresses are
redacted," pursuant to the New Jersey Open Public Records Act (OPRA), N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1 to -13. The order further
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/Opinions/a1763-07.opn.html[4/20/2013 2:56:01 PM]




a1763-07.opn.html
directed that "all other identifying information, including applicants' city of origin and qualifier classifications, along
with the classification key, shall remain." We affirm.
The facts relevant to this appeal are as follows. On April 27, 2007, plaintiff made an OPRA request for the Section 8
documents. The Township denied that request, and on May 29, 2007, plaintiff filed her complaint. The court ordered
defendant to produce the documents for in camera review to determine what information, if any, should be
redacted.
This complaint arises out of plaintiff's application for Section 8 housing assistance. In April 2004, her application was
approved and she was placed at No. 118 on the waiting list. In January 2005, she was No. 98. In January 2006, she
was No. 77. In February 2007, she was No. 41. Two weeks later, however, plaintiff was notified that No. 41 was a
mistake and she needed to complete a new preference form.
Plaintiff completed the new form on March 5, 2007 and sent it to the Township with a request that it not change her
position on the list. Shortly thereafter, she was advised that she was No. 86. Plaintiff made a number of attempts to
contact the Housing Authority but did not receive a response. Consequently, on April 27, 2007, she made her OPRA
request.
The Township has not explained why plaintiff's position on the list moved from 41 to 86, or why she was notified
that she was No. 41 on the list, if that was incorrect. Nor has it explained how she went from 77 in January 2006 to
86 in March 2007.
In this appeal, plaintiff argues that it was reversible error for the trial court (1) to deny her motion for
indigency; (2) to redact information from the Section 8 documents; and (3) to deny her application for attorney's
fees.
After Judge Francis Orlando reviewed the documents in camera, he found that privacy interests were not
implicated as long as the Section 8 applicants' personal information was not disclosed. We are satisfied that Judge
Orlando properly made the distinction between information subject to disclosure under OPRA and that which
should remain confidential. His decision is a measured one that responds to plaintiff's request without disclosing
private information. We affirm substantially for the reasons stated by Judge Orlando on the record of November 2,
2007. Nevertheless, we add the following.
Motions for indigency are entirely within the discretion of the court. R. 1:13-2(a). Absent a showing of abuse of
discretion, we are constrained to affirm. Here, plaintiff has not shown that the trial court abused its discretion.
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/Opinions/a1763-07.opn.html[4/20/2013 2:56:01 PM]




a1763-07.opn.html
With respect to plaintiff's application for attorney's fees, we note that although OPRA authorizes fees to the
"prevailing party," in Teeters v. Div. of Youth & Family Services, 387 N.J. Super. 423, 432-33 (App. Div. 2006), certif.
denied, 189 N.J. 426 (2007), "we articulated a test for whether a party requesting fees under OPRA qualifies as a
'prevailing party.' The inquiry is whether the proceeding initiated by the plaintiff modified the public agency's
behavior in a way that directly benefited the plaintiff." Burnett v. County of Bergen, 402 N.J. Super. 319, 346 (App.
Div.), certif. granted, 196 N.J. 593 (2008). We are satisfied that the trial court properly denied plaintiff's application
for attorney's fees under the circumstances of this case where, although the documents were released to plaintiff,
they were substantially redacted to protect the personal information of Section 8 applicants.
Affirmed.
(continued)
(continued)
4
A-1763-07T3
April 21, 2009
0x01 graphic
This archive is a service of Rutgers School of Law - Camden.
This archive is a service of Rutgers School of Law - Camden.
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/Opinions/a1763-07.opn.html[4/20/2013 2:56:01 PM]

Download a1763-07.opn.pdf

New Jersey Law