From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cea v. Zimmerman

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Oct 30, 2013
110 A.D.3d 1027 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)

Opinion

2013-10-30

Christine S. CEA, etc., et al., appellants, v. Edward ZIMMERMAN, et al., respondents, et al., defendant.

Robert L. Dougherty, Garden City, N.Y., for appellants. Dennis M. Brown, County Attorney, Hauppauge, N.Y. (Susan A. Flynn of counsel), for respondents.


Robert L. Dougherty, Garden City, N.Y., for appellants. Dennis M. Brown, County Attorney, Hauppauge, N.Y. (Susan A. Flynn of counsel), for respondents.

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for wrongful death, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Rebolini, J.), dated August 15, 2012, which denied their motion to compel the production and in camera inspection of certain records of the Suffolk County Police Department Internal Affairs Bureau pursuant to Civil Rights Law § 50–a.

ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the plaintiffs' motion to compel the production and in camera inspection of certain records of the Suffolk County Police Department Internal Affairs Bureau pursuant to Civil Rights Law § 50–a is granted.

The plaintiffs served a notice of discovery and inspection, and thereafter moved to compel the production and in camera inspection of certain records of the Suffolk County Police Department (thereafter SCPD) Internal Affairs Bureau pursuant to Civil Rights Law § 50–a. The Supreme Court denied the plaintiffs' motion.

In support of their motion, the plaintiffs established a factual predicate for obtaining access to the subject records of the *265SCPD Internal Affairs Bureau, which might contain information that is relevant and material to the underlying incident ( see Civil Rights Law § 50–a[1]; Blanco v. County of Suffolk, 51 A.D.3d 700, 701–702, 858 N.Y.S.2d 314). Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the plaintiffs' motion, conducted an in camera inspection of the records, and directed the disclosure of all relevant and material information contained therein ( see Civil Rights Law § 50–a[3]; Blanco v. County of Suffolk, 51 A.D.3d at 702, 858 N.Y.S.2d 314;Evans v. Murphy, 34 A.D.3d 417, 418, 823 N.Y.S.2d 348;see also McFarlane v. County of Suffolk, 79 A.D.3d 706, 912 N.Y.S.2d 297).

MASTRO, J.P., LEVENTHAL, LOTT and ROMAN, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Cea v. Zimmerman

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Oct 30, 2013
110 A.D.3d 1027 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)
Case details for

Cea v. Zimmerman

Case Details

Full title:Christine S. CEA, etc., et al., appellants, v. Edward ZIMMERMAN, et al.…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Date published: Oct 30, 2013

Citations

110 A.D.3d 1027 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)
2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 7007
974 N.Y.S.2d 264

Citing Cases

Cea v. Zimmerman

WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., LEONARD B. AUSTIN, SANDRA L. SGROI, and JOSEPH J. MALTESE, JJ.In an action, inter…

Carrillo v. Brown

Plaintiffs' motion is granted to the extent that defendants City, NYPD and John Doe shall produce the OCCB…