If you think so, take it to court (as is being done in this case). It is quite possible that when they think about it, they will agree with you. Of course, now that they are in court they are "obligated" to fight it somewhat (or admit they were wrong).
I think you are entirely missing the point. You shouldn't have to. This isn't even a close case. It's not even a case.
Also, this one hasn't been taken to court yet, just appealed administratively, since you must exhaust all administrative remedies before you can bring a court action in most cases.
"It is quite possible that when they think about it, they will agree with you. "
Who is they?
So on general principle, the NYPD says "no" to everything, and forces you to appeal, and then forces you to take them to court.
This is not okay. In fact, it's not even close to okay. Governmental apparatus exists at the whim of the people, and when it places it's interests in opposition to ours, forcing us to jump through expensive, time-consuming hoops to extract even the smallest amount of compliance with the law, there is something deeply wrong with the organization at the highest levels. Evidence? The police chief should be yelling at someone about this, and making a public apology for what is clearly absurd and unsupportable stone-walling. The fact that he remains silent implies his complicity. (But then again, what do you expect from someone who condones and expands the appalling stop-and-frisk policy?)
Errr,the law requires they disclose it.
"and having the high level policy of 'no attorney work gets disclosed' seems like a generally safe thing to do."
Actually, many litigants have been heavily sanctioned for this kind of conduct (it used to be standard practice to cc attorneys on random shit and then claim privilege).
It's not generally safe, it's just a great way to piss off a judge.