section 50 disclosure in New York

2019We find that given its nature and use, the body-worn-camera footage at issue is not a personnel record covered by the confidentiality and disclosure requirements of § 50-a ( see Matter of Prisoners' Legal Servs. of N.Y. v New York State Dept. of Correctional Servs. , 73 NY2d 26, 32 [1988]).

2019As this Court and the Appellate Division, First Judicial Department, have previously held, the "records of the CCRB relating to complaints and proceedings against police officers are exempt from disclosure under Civil Rights Law § 50-a(1)" ( Matter of Luongo v Records Access Officer , 161 AD3d 1079 , 1081; see Matter of Luongo v Records Access Officer, Civilian Complaint Review Bd. , 150 AD3d 13, 20-23 ). "[W]hether a document qualifies as a personnel record under Civil Rights Law § 50-a(1) depends upon its nature and its use in evaluating an officer's performance — not its physical location o

2013That portion of the internal investigation report, as redacted, does not “contain any invidious implications capable facially of harassment or degradation of the officer in a courtroom” (Matter of Daily Gazette Co. v City of Schenectady, 93 NY2d at 158 ; see Matter of Capital Newspapers Div. of Hearst Corp. v Burns, 67 NY2d 562, 569 [1986]).

1988The courts below, distinguishing Matter of Capital Newspapers v Burns ( 67 NY2d 562 ), held that the records sought are exempt from disclosure under Civil Rights Law § 50-a and dismissed the proceeding.

2018Accordingly, the "decisive factor" in determining whether a personnel [*3]record is exempted from FOIL disclosure under Civil Rights Law § 50-a is "the potential use of the information," rather than "the specific purpose of the particular individual requesting access," or "whether the request was actually made in contemplation of{**32 NY3d at 565} litigation" ( Daily Gazette , 93 NY2d at 156-157 [emphasis added]).

2016“Proof that information was generated for the purpose of assessing an employee’s alleged misconduct brings that information within the protection of Civil Rights Law § 50-a (1)” (cf. Matter of Hearst Corp. v New York State Police, 132 AD3d 1128, 1129-1130 [3d Dept 2015] [documents collected or produced in an internal investigation pursuant to statute by state police exempt from disclosure under Civil Rights Law § 50-a (1)], citing, inter alia, Matter of Cook, 110 AD3d at 720, quoting Daily Gazette Co., 93 NY2d at 158 [after in camera review, court found that internal affairs investigation repo

2019Also, the medical records are exempt from disclosure pursuant to Civil Rights Law § 50-b, which, with exceptions not relevant here, prevents any public officer from disclosing documents that would identify the victim of a sex offense ( see Matter of Karlin v McMahon , 96 NY2d at 843 ; Matter of Fappiano v New York City Police Dept. , 95 NY2d 738, 747-748 ; Matter of Short v Board of Mgrs. of Nassau County Med.

2016The agency must make a particularized showing that the statutory exemption from disclosure pursuant to Civil Rights Law § 50-b (1) applies to all the records that the petitioner seeks (see Matter of Karlin v McMahon, 96 NY2d at 843 ).

2019Ctr. , 57 NY2d at 405 ).

2015Ctr., 57 NY2d 399, 405-406 [1982]; see also Matter of Karlin v McMahon, 96 NY2d 842, 843 [2001]).

2019As this Court and the Appellate Division, First Judicial Department, have previously held, the "records of the CCRB relating to complaints and proceedings against police officers are exempt from disclosure under Civil Rights Law § 50-a(1)" ( Matter of Luongo v Records Access Officer , 161 AD3d 1079 , 1081; see Matter of Luongo v Records Access Officer, Civilian Complaint Review Bd. , 150 AD3d 13, 20-23 ). "[W]hether a document qualifies as a personnel record under Civil Rights Law § 50-a(1) depends upon its nature and its use in evaluating an officer's performance — not its physical location o

2019The records of the Civilian Complaint Review Board were not under the control of the People for Brady purposes and are exempt from disclosure under Civil Rights Law § 50—a(1) ( see Matter of Luongo v Records Access Officer, Civilian Complaint Review Bd. , 150 AD3d 13 [2017], lv denied 30 NY3d 908 [2017]).

2013The District Attorney’s Office must make a “particularized showing that the statutory exemption from disclosure pursuant to Civil Rights Law § 50-b applies to all the records petitioner seeks” (Matter of Karlin v McMahon, 96 NY2d at 843 ; see Matter of Gould v New York City Police Dept., 89 NY2d 267, 273-275 [1996]).

2013The District Attorney’s Office must make a “particularized showing that the statutory exemption from disclosure pursuant to Civil Rights Law § 50-b applies to all the records petitioner seeks” (Matter of Karlin v McMahon, 96 NY2d at 843 ; see Matter of Gould v New York City Police Dept., 89 NY2d 267, 273-275 [1996]).

2020Contrary to petitioner's contention, the requested materials are exempt from disclosure pursuant to Civil Rights Law § 50-b (1), which provides that "[n]o report, paper, picture, photograph, court file or other documents, in the custody or possession of any public officer or employee, which identifies . . . a victim [of a sex offense defined by Penal Law article 130] shall be made available for public inspection." This exemption applies regardless of petitioner's contention that he requires the material to support his application for postconviction relief ( see Matter of Fappiano v New York Ci

2019Also, the medical records are exempt from disclosure pursuant to Civil Rights Law § 50-b, which, with exceptions not relevant here, prevents any public officer from disclosing documents that would identify the victim of a sex offense ( see Matter of Karlin v McMahon , 96 NY2d at 843 ; Matter of Fappiano v New York City Police Dept. , 95 NY2d 738, 747-748 ; Matter of Short v Board of Mgrs. of Nassau County Med.

2016Here, the Supreme Court should have conducted an in camera inspection to determine whether the entire case file falls within the exemption from disclosure of Civil Rights Law § 50-b (1) (see Matter of MacKenzie v Seiden, 106 AD3d 1140, 1143 [2013]; see also Matter of Newsday, LLC v Nassau County Police Dept., 136 AD3d at 829 ).

2015When this case was previously before this Court, we held that the subject documents may be exempt from disclosure under Civil Rights Law § 50-b (1) and Public Officers Law § 87 (2) (a) if they tend to identify the victim of a sex offense ( 106 AD3d 1140 , 1142 [2013]).

2016Based upon the foregoing, the court finds that CCRB complaint records “ ‘subject! ] the officer to possible disciplinary sanctions and . . . thus [are] an evaluative tool,’ ” exempting them from disclosure (Matter of Argentieri v Goord, 25 AD3d 830, 832 [3d Dept 2006], quoting Matter of Gannett Co. v James, 86 AD2d 744 [1982], lv denied 56 NY2d 502 [1982]; see Prisoners’ Legal Servs., 73 NY2d at 31 ).

2006Respondent does not raise the issue of whether the requested documents are exempt from disclosure pursuant to Civil Rights Law § 50-a (1) and, thus, we do not consider whether that provision has any applicability in this case (cf. Matter of Argentieri v Goord, 25 AD3d 830 [2006]).

2003Employee Interviews Respondent also argues that the employee interviews are exempt from disclosure pursuant to Civil Rights Law § 50-a (1) and Public Officers Law § 87 (2) (a). 1 Civil Rights Law § 50-a (1) provides, in relevant part, that “[a] 11 personnel records, used to evaluate performance toward continued employment or promotion, under the control of * * * a department of correction of individuals employed as correction officers * * * shall be considered confidential and not subject to inspection or review without the express written consent of such * * * correction officer * * * except

1997To the extent that petitioner alleges in his petition that his second FOIL request sought records of disciplinary action taken against members of the State Police as the result of the internal investigation which were not requested in his first FOIL request, we are of the view that such records are specifically exempted from disclosure under Civil Rights Law § 50-a (see, Matter of Lyon v Dunne, 180 AD2d 922, 923 , Iv denied 79 NY2d 758 ).

2020Contrary to petitioner's further contention, because the medical records are exempt from disclosure pursuant to state statute, respondent is "not obligated to provide the records [in redacted form] even though redaction might remove all details which tend to identify the victim' " ( Karlin , 96 NY2d at 843 , citing Civil Rights Law § 50-b [1]; see Matter of Xao He Lu v New York City Police Dept. , 143 AD3d 616, 617 [1st Dept 2016]).

2019Defendant abandoned his request for these records and failed to make a sufficient record when counsel turned down the court's offer for an adjournment for the purpose of subpoenaing the records, rendering his present contention that the failure to disclose these materials violated his right to confront and cross-examine the witness unpreserved for appellate review ( see CPL 470.05[2]; People v Liner , 9 NY3d 856, 856-857 [2007]; People v Castro , 149 AD3d 862 , 865 [2017], lv denied 30 NY3d 1059 [2017]).

2016“Proof that information was generated for the purpose of assessing an employee’s alleged misconduct brings that information within the protection of Civil Rights Law § 50-a (1)” (cf. Matter of Hearst Corp. v New York State Police, 132 AD3d 1128, 1129-1130 [3d Dept 2015] [documents collected or produced in an internal investigation pursuant to statute by state police exempt from disclosure under Civil Rights Law § 50-a (1)], citing, inter alia, Matter of Cook, 110 AD3d at 720, quoting Daily Gazette Co., 93 NY2d at 158 [after in camera review, court found that internal affairs investigation repo

2016“Proof that information was generated for the purpose of assessing an employee’s alleged misconduct brings that information within the protection of Civil Rights Law § 50-a (1)” (cf. Matter of Hearst Corp. v New York State Police, 132 AD3d 1128, 1129-1130 [3d Dept 2015] [documents collected or produced in an internal investigation pursuant to statute by state police exempt from disclosure under Civil Rights Law § 50-a (1)], citing, inter alia, Matter of Cook, 110 AD3d at 720, quoting Daily Gazette Co., 93 NY2d at 158 [after in camera review, court found that internal affairs investigation repo

2016Here, the Supreme Court should have conducted an in camera inspection to determine whether the entire case file falls within the exemption from disclosure of Civil Rights Law § 50-b (1) (see Matter of MacKenzie v Seiden, 106 AD3d 1140, 1143 [2013]; see also Matter of Newsday, LLC v Nassau County Police Dept., 136 AD3d at 829 ).

2016Here, the Supreme Court should have conducted an in camera inspection to determine whether the entire case file falls within the exemption from disclosure of Civil Rights Law § 50-b (1) (see Matter of MacKenzie v Seiden, 106 AD3d 1140, 1143 [2013]; see also Matter of Newsday, LLC v Nassau County Police Dept., 136 AD3d at 829 ).

2015Petitioners now appeal. “[P]ursuant to FOIL’S general mission, which is to promote open government and public accountability, a government agency must make its records available to the public unless an exemption expressly provides otherwise” (Matter of Columbia-Greene Beauty Sch., Inc. v City of Albany, 121 AD3d 1369 , 1370 [2014]; see Public Officers Law §§ 84, 87 [2]). “[E]xemptions are to be narrowly interpreted so that the public is granted maximum access to the records of government” (Matter of Data Tree, LLC v Romaine, 9 NY3d 454, 462 [2007]) and, thus, the party opposing disclosure bear

2015Petitioners now appeal. “[P]ursuant to FOIL’S general mission, which is to promote open government and public accountability, a government agency must make its records available to the public unless an exemption expressly provides otherwise” (Matter of Columbia-Greene Beauty Sch., Inc. v City of Albany, 121 AD3d 1369 , 1370 [2014]; see Public Officers Law §§ 84, 87 [2]). “[E]xemptions are to be narrowly interpreted so that the public is granted maximum access to the records of government” (Matter of Data Tree, LLC v Romaine, 9 NY3d 454, 462 [2007]) and, thus, the party opposing disclosure bear

2014However, 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 [1997]; see also Blanco v County of Suffolk, 51 AD3d 700 [2008]).

2009Petitioners appeal. 1 While agency records are presumptively available for public inspection and disclosure under FOIL (see Matter of Capital Newspapers Div. of Hearst Corp. v Burns, 67 NY2d 562, 566 [1986]; Matter of Beyah v Goord, 309 AD2d 1049, 1049 [2003]), an agency may deny access to records which “are specifically exempted from disclosure by state or federal statute” (Public Officers Law § 87 [2] [a]).