9/11 News Items (7/14/26)
Arnold Korotkin
An informed citizen is an empowered citizen.
In 9/11 Records Case, NYC DEP Records Appeal Officer Testifies Agency Attorney Instructed Him to Rule Against 911 Health Watch Without Investigation, Any Interview of Record Searchers or Directing Another Record Search
First Time in 18 Year Career as Records Appeal Officer
He Was Directed How to Decide a Case
Corporation Counsel Terminated the Deposition, Walking Out with Witness; Witness Admitted to Emails About the Appeal although City Attorneys Denied the Emails Existed
911 Health Watch Has Requested Court Intervention
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
911 Health Watch is again seeking court intervention in its continuing efforts to have the City of New York release the public records about what the City knew about hazardous air quality in lower Manhattan after the collapse of the World Trade Center and when it knew it.
On Wednesday, July 1st, DEP Records Appeal Officer Russell Pecunies, the senior official who denied 911 Health Watch’s original Freedom of Information request regarding DEP records, testified that he had been directed by the head of the FOIL Unit to make that determination. Pecunies then signed the determination without conducting any investigation, investigations he made in every other determination reached over the past two decades.
Here is the transcript of that deposition.
Two years after we filed our Freedom of Information request, after ruling against us in the administrative appeal and after the NYC Council authorized the first ever City Council-mandated DOI investigation, DEP admitted to the Court it had the records all along — at least 68 boxes of them.
The Court, after ruling in our favor and determining that the City violated the Freedom of Information Law by denying DEP had any responsive documents, granted our request to take testimony to find out why the DEP took these contradictory positions, denying our request in the first place.
Mr. Pecunies swore under oath that Musa Ali, who sat nearby during testimony and commented on the record, directed him on how to decide the case and deny the appeal of 911 Health Watch. According to his testimony,(excerpted below) this marked the only time in his 18-year career as DEP’s only Freedom of Information Appeals Officer in which he was instructed to stand down, do nothing, and adopt a scripted response prepared by a lawyer to deny a request for public records. Ali is neither a Records Appeals Officer nor records searcher.
Ordinarily, the Appeals Officer questions record searchers and directs further searches for the requested documents. He did not do so in this case. Mr. Pecunies asked for and was denied the names of the record searchers and never got to interview them.
This testimony took place less than one day after Mayor Mamdani’s announcement of $34.2 Million to fund “a public online portal for documents related to post-9/11 air quality and health risks.” On that same day, the Mayor told New Yorkers they no longer needed to fight for September 11th records that “should have been theirs from the beginning.”
Hours later, Corporation Counsel Steve Banks, who has pledged to release all 9/11-related records, filed a request to dismiss our other court case against the Mayor’s Office for release of records.
The Mayor’s Office claims it has no records of the response of the Giuliani Administration dating from September, October, November and December 2001. Given the fame Mayor Giuliani attained as a result of his actions in those months, this is not believable. Also, 911 Health Watch uncovered a directive from the Law Department directing all City government, including the Mayor’s Office, to preserve World Trade Center-related records, permanently.
Having trouble following this? Join the club.
We would be happy to applaud the Mayors’ action as well, but we still have questions:
What exactly are the intentions of Corporation Counsel Steve Banks in filing a Motion to Dismiss 911 Health Watch’s court case against the Mayor just hours after the Mayor announced the online portal?
Why is the current Mayor fighting the release of Mayor Giuliani’s records?
You can read the NYC Court filing motion to Dismiss here.
You can read 911 Health Watch response to deposition here.
As of today, the City Law Department and Mayor’s Office are continuing to defend their closure of 911 Health Watch’s Freedom of Information request for records concerning the response to the World Trade Center collapse.
Here are the questions we hope the City can answer:
- Why is the City of New York creating a portal for $34.2 million to release 9/11 documents, while at the same time closing our FOIL and continuing to fight us on releasing those documents?
- Why did the Office of the Mayor, under this administration, advise 911 Health Watch that it did not have any records dating from September through December 2001, and now claims it needs $34 million to produce these records?
- Why did the Office of the Mayor, under this administration, deny being able to find the October 2001 Deputy Robert Harding memo, a document demonstrating that the City knew it faced tens of thousands of claims from those who returned to lower Manhattan “too early” in reliance upon representations that the air was safe?
- Why was the Office of the Mayor unable to find a copy of the Harding Memo, when 911 Health Watch was able to obtain a copy of it from an archive in Austin, Texas?
- What were the documents that the Law Department had four years ago when they met with the staff of Representatives Carolyn Maloney and Jerrold Nadler, and told them they would provide documents they were seeking about what the city knew about the hazards from 9/11 if the Representatives could get an increase in the City’s liability protection?
- Where are the DEP documents that were supposed to be produced following 911 Health Watch’s successful lawsuit in May that still have not been provided?
- Why has this administration in our DEP case refused so far to certify that it has completed locating all responsive documents?
The bottom line is: will the City of NY respond to our FOIL Request for these crucial documents? You can see the list here.
Said Benjamin Chevat, Executive Director 911 Healthwatch:
“We just want to understand why on the one hand the City says it is going to disclose what it knows about 9/11 and on the other hand is trying to dismiss our case trying to get the documents we asked for in our Freedom of Information request as to what the City knew and when it knew it about the hazards of 9/11. “
Said Andrew Carboy, Pro Bono Attorney:
“The answers of DEP’s Record Appeals Officer shattered my worst expectations about the City’s efforts to hide its September 11th archive. The City misused this career staffer as a cut out, stripping him of any independence and directing him to sign a scripted “decision.” This is the most shocking testimony I have taken in my three decades of practice. We credit the witness for his candor. It took courage to speak the truth before the very official who advised him to rule against our client and sign the determination. Matthew McCauley and I will continue our work to get answers, even as Corporation Counsel Steve Banks just filed papers to dismiss our other lawsuit against the Mamdani Administration for its failure to disclose Giuliani-era records. The disconnect between the Mayor’s pledge of 9/11 transparency and the actions of the City Law Department in fighting the release of those same documents remains baffling. I wonder if the Corporation Counsel has even read the Pecunies transcript and the recent court submissions, filed in his name.”
Said Matthew McCauley, Pro Bono Attorney:
“Over the last 3 years Andy Carboy and I have worked feverishly pro-bono, to obtain documents that the Adams administration refused to produce and now the Mamdani administration admits exist but still refuses to produce. All along, Andy and I have done our job not only to remain focused on a finite group of documents the City admitted it has but apparently doesn’t want to produce.
As we approach the 25th Anniversary, we call upon Mr Mayor and Mr Banks to produce what we asked for the last three years, and that have been hidden for the last 25 years.”
Excerpt from Transcript (Starting at page 81)
Full Transcript is can be found here.
BY MR. CARBOY:
22 Q Mr. Pecunies, is it accurate to
23 state, and I don't want to hear about
24 anything you learned from this attorney,
25 that the substance of your determination
Page 82
1 R. PECUNIES
2 was based upon what the attorney told you,
3 as opposed to information you obtained
4 directly yourself?
5 A Yes.
6 Q What is the name of the attorney
7 that you were referring to?
8 A The attorney --
9 Q What is the name of the
10 attorney --
11 A Yes.
12 Q -- that you just referenced?
13 A Musa Ali.
14 Q How often is it the case that
15 you, an attorney for decades and the only
16 FOIA Appeals Officer at DEP --
17 MR. ALFIERI: Objection.
18 MR. CARBOY: -- has your substantive
19 conclusions of a FOIA appeal directed to
20 you by another attorney?
21 MS. DHINSA: Objection.
22 Attorney-client privilege.
23 BY MR. CARBOY:
24 Q Is this typical for you when you
25 determine your appeals?
Page 83
1 R. PECUNIES
2 MR. ALFIERI: Objection.
3 MS. DHINSA: Objection. You can
4 answer.
5 THE WITNESS: I can answer?
6 MS. DHINSA: Can you repeat their
7 last question, please?
8 THE REPORTER: Stand by.
9 (The reporter repeated the
10 record as requested.)
11 THE WITNESS: Where we left off.
12 MS. DHINSA: Yeah, I just want to
13 make sure you understand the question, as
14 well.
15 THE WITNESS: So the question is, is
16 it typical?
17 MR. CARBOY: Yes.
18 MR. ALFIERI: -- answer --
19 THE WITNESS: That's -- no, it's not
20 typical.
21 BY MR. CARBOY:
22 Q Is this the only FOIA appeal in
23 your tenure as FOIA Appeals Officer where
24 you've had your conclusion or the
25 conclusion essentially dictated to you by
another person?
Page 84
R. PECUNIES
3 MR. ALFIERI: Objection.
4 MS. DHINSA: Objection.
5 MR. ALFIERI: That's not his
6 testimony.
7 MS. DHINSA: That's a
8 mischaracterization of --
9 MR. CARBOY: It's a form objection.
10 You can answer.
11 MS. DHINSA: You can answer.
12 THE WITNESS: Has -- has there been
13 another case where this has happened?
14 MR. CARBOY: Yes, sir.
15 THE WITNESS: Not to my recollection.
16 BY MR. CARBOY:
17 Q So this is the one and only case
18 in 18 years, during your tenure as the
19 FOIA Appeals Officer for DEP?
20 A As far as I can remember, yes.
DOCUMENTS
June 15, 2026, NYC Response to 911 Health Watch Art 78
June 26, 2026, 911 Health Watch Response to City
June 30, 2026, NYC Motion to Dismiss 911 Health Article 78
July 1, 2026, Deposition of DEP Records Appeal Officer
July 9. 2026 911 Health Watch Response to City in DEP Article 78
NYS Court Docket 911 Health Watch Article 78 on DEP
NYS Court Docket 911 Health Watch Article 78 on Mayors Office
For More information go to our website here:
911 Health Watch Website on Effort to Get New York City to Release 9/11 Documents
You can view this statement on our website here.
###
9/11 Health Watch
c/o NYS AFL-CIO
100 South Swan Street
Albany, NY 12210
United States