He commenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 against the respondent New York City Department of Probation in or about November 1995 to compel the respondent to expunge certain allegedly inaccurate information from the presentence report prepared in connection with the criminal action. The Supreme Court properly dismissed the petition because the challenges now made to the accuracy of the presentence report should have been raised before sentencing ( see, Matter of Salahuddin v. Mitchell, 232 A.D.2d 903; Matter of Gayle v. Lewis, 212 A.D.2d 919; People v. Banchs-Rivera, 168 Misc.2d 72; CPL 390.40, 400.10 Crim. Proc.). Rosenblatt, J. P., O'Brien, Ritter and Goldstein, JJ., concur.
However, even though a factual showing has been made, the defendant is not automatically entitled to an unredacted copy, as such reports consist of confidential material which may be appropriately withheld from disclosure ( Matter of Shader, 233 A.D.2d at 717). To the extent defendant moves to challenge the accuracy of the presentence report, such challenges must be raised before sentencing ( Matter of Hughes v. New York City Dept. of Probation, 281 A.D.2d 229, 721 N.Y.S.2d 770; Matter of Antonucci v. Nelson, 298 A.D.2d 388, 389, 751 N.Y.S.2d 395; Matter of Sciaraffo v. New York City Dept. of Probation, 248 A.D.2d 477, 669 N.Y.S.2d 513; Matter of Salahuddin v. Mitchell, 232 A.D.2d 903, 904, 649 N.Y.S.2d 353; Matter of Salerno v. Murphy, 292 A.D.2d 837, 837-38, 738 N.Y.S.2d 626; People v. Banchs-Rivera, 168 Misc.2d 72, 73, 643 N.Y.S.2d 330). The probation department is directed to provide a copy of the pre-sentence report to defendant for the purpose of preparing an administrative appeal. The probation department is further directed to redact any confidential material which may be appropriately withheld from disclosure including, but not limited to, names, addresses and telephone numbers.
However, even though a factual showing has been made, the defendant is not automatically entitled to an unredacted copy, as such reports consist of confidential material which may be appropriately withheld from disclosure (Matter of Shader, 233 AD2d at 717). To the extent defendant moves to challenge the accuracy of the presentence report, such challenges must be raised before sentencing (Matter of Hughes v New York City Dept. of Probation, 281 AD2d 229 [2001]; Matter of Antonucci v Nelson, 298 AD2d 388, 389 [2002]; Matter of Sciaraffo v New York City Dept. of Probation, 248 AD2d 477 [1998]; Matter of Salahuddin v Mitchell, 232 AD2d 903, 904 [1996]; Matter of Salerno v Murphy, 292 AD2d 837, 837-838 [2002]; People v Banchs-Rivera, 168 Misc 2d 72, 73 [1996]). The Probation Department is directed to provide a copy of the presentence report to defendant for the purpose of preparing an administrative appeal.