Spadaro v. Balesteri

10 Citing cases

  1. Calhoun v. Cnty. of Suffolk

    2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 9095 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)   Cited 3 times

    Accordingly, the plaintiff met his burden for compelling disclosure pursuant to Civil Rights Law § 50-a, and the court properly directed the County to disclose the IAB report. However, we perceive no reason why the plaintiff should have been denied access to the audiotapes of the interviews which were identified in the attachments to the IAB report (see Spadaro v Balesteri, 237 AD2d 507; see also Blanco v County of Suffolk, 51 AD3d 700). The plaintiff should be permitted to hear the actual interviews of the officers regarding the accident, and not only read the IAB report's summaries thereof, since the interviews were the main source material for the IAB report and were incorporated by reference therein (see Spadaro v Balesteri, 237 AD2d at 507; see generally Matter of Knight-Ridder Broadcasting v Greenberg, 119 AD2d 68, mod on other grounds, 70 NY2d 151).

  2. Blanco v. County of Suffolk

    51 A.D.3d 700 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)   Cited 24 times

    The plaintiffs offered, in good faith, a factual predicate for obtaining access to the personnel records ( see Civil Rights Law § 50-a), which might contain information that is relevant and material to their causes of action to recover damages for negligent hiring, retention, and supervision ( see Pickering v State of New York, 30 AD3d 393, 394; Flores v City of New York, 207 AD2d 302, 304). Likewise, the plaintiffs offered, in good faith, a factual predicate for obtaining access to the records of the Police Department Internal Affairs Division relating to the subject incident ( see Civil Rights Law § 50-a; Evans v Murphy, 34 AD3d 417, 418; Spadaro v Balesteri, 237 AD2d 507). Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have conducted an in camera inspection of the subject records, and directed the disclosure of all relevant and material information contained therein ( see Civil Rights Law § 50-a; Evans v Murphy, 34 AD3d at 418; Pickering v State of New York, 30 AD3d at 393-394; Spadaro v Balesteri, 237 AD2d at 507; Flores v City of New York, 207 AD2d at 304; Becker v City of New York, 162 AD2d 488, 489-490).

  3. Evans v. Murphy

    34 A.D.3d 417 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)   Cited 5 times

    After an in camera inspection of the file of the Internal Affairs Bureau of the New York City Police Department (hereinafter IAB) with respect to the subject incident, the Supreme Court directed that the file "shall not be produced." The Supreme Court should have directed the defendants to produce the three-page investigative report in the IAB file, after the redaction of the names of any witnesses, because the report contains information which is material and relevant to the plaintiffs' action (see Pickering v State of New York, 30 AD3d 393; Spadaro v Balesteri, 237 AD2d 507). The plaintiffs' remaining contentions are without merit.

  4. Pickering v. State of New York

    30 A.D.3d 393 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)   Cited 46 times

    Moreover, at this early stage of the proceedings, and in the absence of a clear concession by the defendant that the officer acted completely within the scope of his employment ( cf. Ashley v. City of New York, 7 AD3d 742; Rossetti v. Board of Educ. of Schalmont Cent. School Dist., 277 AD2d 668; Karoon v. New York City Tr. Auth., 241 AD2d 323), the claimants were entitled to plead incompatible theories of recovery in the alternative ( see CPLR 3014; Perkins v. Volpe, 146 AD2d 617). Since the claimants sustained their burden of demonstrating the relevance of the personnel file materials to their causes of action, inter alia, for negligent hiring and/or training, the Court of Claims acted properly ( see Civil Rights Law § 50-a; Spadaro v. Balesteri, 237 AD2d 507; Estate of McConlogue v. County of Nassau, 208 AD2d 888; Becker v. City of New York, 162 AD2d 488) and did not frustrate the goal of the statute to curtail fishing expeditions into police personnel files and thereby prevent the release of irrelevant and potentially damaging information ( see generally Matter of Daily Gazette Co. v. City of Schenectady, 93 NY2d 145, 154-155; Matter of Capital Newspapers Div. of Hearst Corp. v. Burns, 67 NY2d 562, 569; Flores v. City of New York, 207 AD2d 302, 303; Zarn v. City of New York, 198 AD2d 220, 220-221). The parties' remaining contentions either are without merit or are improperly raised for the first time on appeal.

  5. Calhoun v. Cnty. of Suffolk

    2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 33917 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2013)

    of Dunnigan v Waverly Police Dept., 279 AD2d 833 [2001]; Taran v State of New York, 140 AD2d 429 [1988]). "This threshold requirement is designed to eliminate fishing expeditions into police officers' personnel files for collateral materials to be used for impeachment purposes" (Zarn v City of New York, 198 AD2d at 220-221). With respect to disclosure of the records sought by plaintiff, the Court in its prior Order found that plaintiff had provided a good faith factual predicate for the disclosure of such records, to wit: the deposition testimony of three Suffolk County Police Officers indicating that Internal Affairs and Captain Paul Ryan conducted investigations into the accident, which may contain information that is relevant and material to plaintiff's allegation of negligence against the County (see Blanco v County of Suffolk, 51 AD3d 700 [2008]; Evans v Murphy, 34 AD3d 417 [2006]; Pickering v State of New York, 30 AD3d 393 [2006]; Flores v City of New York, 207 AD2d 302 [1994]; Spadaro v Balesteri, 237 AD2d 507 [1997]). This Court is mindful of the holding in Evans v Murphy, supra, wherein the defendant City of New York was directed to produce a three page Internal Affairs Report, redacting the names of witnesses therein.

  6. Calhoun v. Cnty. of Suffolk

    2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 33137 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2012)

    With respect to disclosure of the records sought by plaintiff, the Court finds that plaintiff has provided a good faith factual predicate for the disclosure of such records, to wit: the deposition testimony of three Suffolk County Police Officers indicating that Internal Affairs and Captain Paul Ryan conducted investigations into the accident, which may contain information that is relevant and material to plaintiff's allegation of negligence against the County (see Blanco v County of Suffolk, 51 AD3d 700 [2008]; Evans v Murphy, 34 AD3d 417 [2006]; Pickering v State of New York, 30 AD3d 393 [2006]; Flores v City of New York, 207 AD2d 302 [1994]; Spadaro v Balesteri, 237 AD2d 507 [1997]).

  7. Chavez v. City of New York

    2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 51930 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2011)

    Internal affairs and NYPD investigative records are discoverable, as are records of any disciplinary action taken against the officers, to the extent they contain information relevant to plaintiff's claims. (See McFarlane, 79 AD3d at 708; Blanco, 51 AD3d at 701-702; Evans v Murphy, 34 AD3d 427 [2d Dept 2006]; McBride v City of Rochester, 17 AD3d 1065 [4th Dept 2005] [defendants directed to produce post-incident investigation documents]; Mann v Alvarez, 242 AD2d 318 [2d Dept 1997] [IA records were relevant to plaintiff's federal claims and thus discoverable]; Spadaro v Balesteri, 237 AD2d 507 [2d Dept 1997], lv denied 90 NY2d 935 [court ordered production of recorded statements made during NYPD internal investigation]; Svaigsen v City of New York, 203 AD2d 32 [1st Dept 1994]; Ramos, 285 AD2d at 307 [plaintiff entitled to information relating to internal discipline or other remedial action]; Lewis v City of New York, 17 Misc 3d 559 [Sup Ct, Bronx County 2007] [records created during NYPD internal investigation discoverable]).

  8. Chavez v. City of New York

    2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 51930 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2011)

    Internal affairs and NYPD investigative records are discoverable, as are records of any disciplinary action taken against the officers, to the extent they contain information relevant to plaintiff's claims. ( See McFarlane, 79 AD3d at 708; Blanco, 51 AD3d at 701-702; Evans v Murphy, 34 AD3d 427 [2d Dept 2006]; McBride v City of Rochester , 17 AD3d 1065 [4th Dept 2005] [defendants directed to produce post-incident investigation documents]; Mann v Alvarez, 242 AD2d 318 [2d Dept 1997] [IA records were relevant to plaintiff's federal claims and thus discoverable]; Spadaro v Balesteri, 237 AD2d 507 [2d Dept 1997], lv denied 90 NY2d 935 [court ordered production of recorded statements made during NYPD internal investigation]; Svaigsen v City of New York, 203 AD2d 32 [1st Dept 1994]; Ramos, 285 AD2d at 307 [plaintiff entitled to information relating to internal discipline or other remedial action]; Lewis v City of New York , 17 Misc 3d 559 [Sup Ct, Bronx County 2007] [records created during NYPD internal investigation discoverable]). To the extent that the documents reference prior complaints made or disciplinary action taken against the officers, they are also discoverable.

  9. Chavez v. City of New York

    2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 32733 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2011)

    Internal affairs and NYPD investigative records are discoverable, as are records of any disciplinary action taken against the officers, to the extent they contain information relevant to plaintiff's claims. (See McFarlane, 79 AD3d at 708; Blanco, 51 AD3d at 701-702; Evans v Murphy, 34 AD3d 427 [2d Dept 2006]; McBride v City of Rochester, 17 AD3d 1065 [4th Dept 2005] [defendants directed to produce post-incident investigation documents]; Mann v Alvarez, 242 AD2d 318 [2d Dept 1997] [IA records were relevant to plaintiff's federal claims and thus discoverable]; Spadaro v Balesteri, 237 AD2d 507 [2d Dept 1997], Iv denied 90 NY2d 935 [court ordered production of recorded statements made during NYPD internal investigation]; Svaigsen v City of New York, 203 AD2d 32 [1st Dept 1994]; Ramos, 285 AD2d at 307 [plaintiff entitled to information relating to internal discipline or other remedial action]; Lewis v City of New York, 17 Misc 3d 559 [Sup Ct, Bronx County 2007] [records created during NYPD internal investigation discoverable]).

  10. People v. Oglesby

    177 Misc. 2d 580 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1998)   Cited 3 times

    Based on that in camera inspection, this court is satisfied that the subpoenaed information is not relevant and material to this case, and need not be disclosed. (See, Civil Rights Law § 50-a; see also, Spadaro v. Balesteri, 237 A.D.2d 507.) In so ruling, this court is struck by the irony that such records, which are not discoverable by a defendant facing life imprisonment, would likely be discoverable in a Federal civil lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, since Federal courts have declined to enforce provisions of the New York Civil Rights Law which conflict with Federal provisions allowing broad discovery in civil cases.