Opinion
June 11, 1990
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Duberstein, J.).
Ordered that the order is reversed, with one bill of costs payable by the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs, the motion is granted, the cross motion is denied, and the City of New York is directed to produce the personnel records of the defendant police officers Harry Antoine and Alfred Johnson for in camera inspection by the Supreme Court, Kings County, within 30 days after service upon the City of New York of a copy of this decision and order, with notice of entry.
The plaintiffs Robert and Philip Becker claim that they were physically assaulted and wrongfully arrested in an altercation with New York City police officers following a traffic incident. The plaintiffs seek disclosure of the report of the New York City Police Department Internal Affairs Division (hereinafter IAD) relating to the incident. The Supreme Court denied the plaintiffs' motion seeking disclosure and granted the cross motion of the City of New York for a protective order. The court held that a report, which is part of the police officers' personnel records, is "cloaked with the mantle of confidentiality" under Civil Rights Law § 50-a, that disclosure is also precluded by the public interest privilege for confidential government communication, and that the plaintiffs failed to make the requisite factual showing to warrant an in camera examination of the materials.
We disagree. The plaintiffs were merely required to offer, in good faith, "some factual predicate" for providing access to the IAD records so as to warrant an in camera review (People v Gissendanner, 48 N.Y.2d 543, 550; Civil Rights Law § 50-a; Taran v. State of New York, 140 A.D.2d 429, 432). This threshold requirement of Civil Rights Law § 50-a (2) is designed to eliminate fishing expeditions of police officers' personnel files for collateral materials to be used for impeachment purposes (see, Matter of Capital Newspapers Div. v. Burns, 67 N.Y.2d 562, 568-569). The plaintiffs have made the required factual showing that specific materials in the officers' files relate to the incident in question (see, Lawrence v. City of New York,
118 A.D.2d 758, 759; Cox v. New York City Hous. Auth., 105 A.D.2d 663, 664; People v. Morales, 97 Misc.2d 733, 740).
In addition, we reject as without merit the defendants' claim that the IAD report is protected by the public interest privilege for confidential government communications (see, Cirale v. 80 Pine St. Corp., 35 N.Y.2d 113; People v. Keating, 286 App. Div. 150, 153). Bracken, J.P., Eiber, Sullivan and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.