Opinion
March 28, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Held, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the petition is granted to the extent that the respondent is directed to comply with the petitioner's request, subject to the redaction of such information as the Supreme Court, Kings County, after an in camera inspection, shall determine to be exempt from disclosure in accordance herewith; and it is further,
Ordered that the proceeding is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for the purpose of conducting such an in camera inspection, and for further proceedings consistent herewith.
Assuming, without deciding, that the exemption from disclosure reflected in CPLR 3101 (d) may, under certain circumstances, operate so as to restrict the scope of the disclosure which must be made pursuant to the Freedom of Information Law (see, Public Officers Law § 87 [a]; see also, Matter of Short v. Board of Mgrs., 85 A.D.2d 606, revd on other grounds 57 N.Y.2d 399; Matter of Westchester-Rockland Newspapers v. Mosczydlowski, 58 A.D.2d 234; Matter of Niagara Envtl. Action v. City of Niagara Falls, 100 A.D.2d 742, affd 63 N.Y.2d 651; Matter of Sea Crest Constr. Corp. v. Stubing, 82 A.D.2d 546; cf., Matter of Farbman Sons v. New York City Health Hosps. Corp., 62 N.Y.2d 75), we conclude that that exemption, which in any event is not absolute (see, e.g., Dunning v. Shell Oil Co., 57 A.D.2d 16; Hoffman v. Ro-San Manor, 73 A.D.2d 207), does not prohibit the disclosure sought by the petitioner in the particular circumstances of this case. The petitioner has demonstrated a "substantial need" (CPLR 3101 [d] [2]) for the materials requested, so that the terms of CPLR 3101 (d) do not constitute an absolute bar to their production. However, the respondent has established the potential applicability of other statutory exemptions (see, Public Officers Law § 87 [b], [e] [iv]), and we conclude that an in camera inspection of the materials requested is therefore warranted.
In a post-submission affirmation improperly addressed to this Court ( 22 NYCRR 670.19 [i]), the People argued that the petitioner's appeal had become moot, at least in part. We decline to review this argument which, in any event, may be made before the Supreme Court in conjunction with the in camera inspection (see, Johnson v. Johnson Chem. Co., 183 A.D.2d 64, 74, n). Bracken, J.P., Balletta, O'Brien and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.