9/11 News Items (3/31/26)
Arnold Korotkin
911 Health Watch files Lawsuit over FOIL Denial of request for 9/11 documents:
The Mayor’s Office and Law Department Claim They Cannot Find Responsive Records
Where have we heard that before?
March 30, 2026
Mayor Mamdani’s Records Appeal Officer has responded to the 2023 Freedom of Information Law request of 911 Health Watch by denying our appeal and closing it. After two and half years, the Mayor and Law Department have disclosed zero records, claiming a “diligent search” could not locate any.
The City Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) made an identical excuse in 2024. After denying our FOIL request, rejecting our appeal and then moving to dismiss our lawsuit to compel release of documents as frivolous, DEP now admits it has at least 68 boxes of responsive records, some 340,000 pages in all including memos that indicate that all documents regarding 9/11 were collected by the Department of Law.
We believe that Corporation Counsel Steve Banks is sincere in his recent repeated public statements before City Council committees at confirmation and budget hearings that he plans to release documents. But career officials in the City of New York bureaucracy conduct themselves differently, refusing over and over to provide any of the September 11th archive.
After two and half years, the City provided 911 Healthwatch with internet links to widely available, decades-old federal reports and testimony. It is clearly “business as usual” in the corridors of the Law Department and Mayor’s Office when it comes to September 11th transparency.
Our pro bono counsels have filed Article 78 proceedings in response to the denial by the Mayor’s Records Officer.
You can view our court filing on our website here.
911 Health Watch calls on the City Council to fully fund the Department of Investigation inquiry that the Council passed this past summer as to the reasons why the September 11th archive remains locked away. Only by independent investigation will the public have any certainty what the City knew about toxic conditions in lower Manhattan and when it learned it.
Here is what the records/appeals officer said in his March 20th, 2026, decision.
“The Records Access Officer (RAO) acknowledged your request on September 8, 2023, and subsequently extended the projected response date. On September 7, 2025, you amended your request to only include sections 1, 2, 5(a)(i-vi), and 5(c-e). On December 12, 2025, you appealed on the basis that the RAO’s actions to date constitute a constructive denial. The Mayor’s Office responded to your appeal and remanded your request to the RAO with instructions to respond with any responsive records by February 27, 2026. The RAO responded on behalf of the Mayor’s office, the Department of Design and Construction (DDC), and the New York City Law Department stating that the Mayor’s Office and DDC conducted diligent searches and found no responsive records, and that the Law Department’s records were not kept in a manner that allowed them to search for responsive records. You filed an appeal via email on March 8, 2026, claiming the response was insufficient.”
Here are questions we have:
- Why did it take over two and half years and 12 postponements for the Mayor’s Office to advise that neither it nor the Law Department has responsive records?
- Why is the Mayor’s Records Officer also the Appeals Officer?
- Why did the Mayor’s Records Officer respond on February 27, 2026 with already-public records—five of which were federal government documents?
- Why does the Mayor’s Records Officer direct us to DORIS—the city’s archive—when this online archive system indicates the documents of Deputy Mayor Robert Harding and Mayor Giuliani’s Chief of Staff, Anthony Carbonetti are not yet available to the public and must be first reviewed by the Law Department and/or Mayor’s Office?
- As has been widely reported and detailed in our Article 78 proceeding against the DEP, and, again, in our action against the Law Department and Mayor’s Office, the Law Department met with the staff of Representatives Carolyn Maloney and Jerrold Nadler and told them “New York City will release a treasure trove of memos about what the city knew about the toxic air at the World Trade Center site — only if federal lawmakers can help protect the city from lawsuits after the documents are made public, the Daily News has learned. “ “NYC concerned about lawsuits after release of post-9/11 memos about toxic air at Ground Zero” Michael McAuliff NY Daily News July 30, 2022 ” City lawyers have told Nadler and Maloney that Adams might divulge the documents if the feds grant the city immunity from further litigation.” NY Post “NYC refusing to release 9/11 records without lawsuit immunity” Susan Edelman, Sep. 10, 2022 (add url) What were the documents that the Corporation counsel was talking about?
- If the Records Officer is “remanding the appeal in relation to the Law Department,” why did the Records Officer close the FOIL request?
- Corporation Counsel Steve Banks’ public statements that he is preparing a “portal” to share the City’s records is simply stating the current law, that responses to FOIL need to be put on the City’s website. They are at odds with the official record and the history of the City of New York’s response not only in the five years after Representatives Maloney and Nadler’s request to then Mayor DeBlasio, but the last nearly 25 years.
- What exactly is Banks planning to release? Our Article 78 regarding DEP demonstrates that the Law Department completed a comprehensive collection, scanning and retention of all agency documents concerning the September 11th response.
- Will Banks release the records the Adams administration identified and set aside, seeking to barter them for financial benefits and legal protection from the federal government?
- Will Banks release the records and communications with Congress from October and November of 2001, when the Giuliani Administration lobbied Congress to cap the City’s liability at $350 million?
- Will the City finally release all of the documents informing the Harding Memo’s conclusions and assessments? (911 Health Watch obtained the Harding Memo, privately, earlier this year from an archive in Texas.)
- Banks needs to say exactly what the Law Department plans to release and what the department plans to NOT release.
- Will the Mayor support and fund the DOI budget request for three million dollars to fund the City Council directed investigation of what the City of NY knew about the hazards of the toxins after the 9/11 attack?
- Will the Mayor publicly commit to supporting this effort to provide the records that have been held from the public for the last 25 years?
Former DOI Commissioner Stauber estimated that DOI requires $3 Million in funding to fully investigate the City’s stubborn, institutional resistance to disclosing September 11 related records. Council Speaker Menin must support the DOI effort and authorize this expenditure in the FY27 budget. Given the extraordinary amount of obstruction, we have encountered in our efforts to obtain documents, it is clear that the resources and authority of DOI are needed to address the root causes of the City’s intransigence. The September 11th archives belong to the public.
Benjamin Chevat, Executive Director of 911 Health Watch Inc, stated:
“Mayor Mamdani can still be the Mayor who, after 25 years, answers the question: what did the City know about the hazards caused by the toxic chemicals at Ground Zero, and when did it know it? He can do that by announcing his support for the $3 million DOI funding request.”
Explained Andrew Carboy:
“With its everchanging replies, the City plays 3 card monte with September 11th records. It is like the administration is making first responders and survivors “marks” moving the ball as career City officials seek to deprive them of the answers they deserve. After 2.5 years of delays, the City advises there are no records. Then, the City tells us there are records, but that they are not organized to be searched. From our DEP lawsuit, we know the Law Department collected and scanned all World Trade Center-related documents from City agencies. The Mayor’s Office attempts to distract by pointing to Mr. Banks’ statement that he will follow the law, and “dazzling” with Google search results for a 2003 federal EPA report and 2004 Congressional testimony. These are not FOIL responses. Then, we are directed to the Department of Records, but its files of Deputy Mayor Harding and Mayor Giuliani’s Chief of Staff remain unprocessed,” and unavailable to the public. The redirection continues: in 2024, the Law Department “closed” our request, and sent us to the Mayor. Now, the Mayor is sending the FOIL request back to the Law Department. The sleight of hand must stop, now. “
Matthew McCauley stated:
“The City is giving wildly conflicting orders on the handling of the withheld documents, and the 9/11 Community that continues to be in the dark. It is this administration’s duty to stop this and fully fund the Department of Investigation’s work and get it done now before we get to the 25thAnniversary.”
###
Documents
December 31, 2025, DOI Letter to Speaker Adams
Feb 27. 2026 NYC Response to FOIL
March 8, 2026, 911 Health Watch Appeal
March 20, 2026, FOIL Appeal Denied
March 29, 2026, 911 Health Watch Article 78
Doris Carbonetti Files Not Available
NYS Court Docket with 911 Health Watch Filing
911 Health Watch Website on Effort to Get New York City to Release 9/11 Documents
9/11 Health Watch
c/o NYS AFL-CIO
100 South Swan Street
Albany, NY 12210
United States