The Court has completed its in camera review of the personnel records of Correction Officer (CO) Credo and Lieutenant Michael Azzinaro, who are both employees of the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision and were involved in the incident that is the subject of this claim. As you recall, during a conference with the Court on November 13, 2023, conducted via the Microsoft Teams platform, Ms. Fuchs reported that she had requested that defendant produce the disciplinary/personnel files of CO Credo and Lt. Azzinaro. Mr. Rizzo stated that the repeal of Civil Rights Law §50-a notwithstanding, the records are protected under Public Officers Law §96 and are not discoverable unless they are material and necessary to the claim and should be reviewed in camera. Mr. Rizzo further stated that in the event the Court directs defendant to turn over the files to claimant, all personal identifying information should be redacted. Ms. Fuchs responded that an in camera review was preferable to protracted motion practice, and Mr. Rizzo provided the Court with the disciplinary/personnel files of CO Credo and Lt. Azzinaro by e-mail immediately following the conference. The CPLR reflects this State’s policy in favor of broad disclosure by mandating “full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action” (CPLR §3101 [a]; see Calhoun v. Pickett, 77 AD2d 776, 776 [3d Dept 1980], affd sub nom Hoenig v. Westphal, 52 NY2d 605 [1981]). It is well settled that “[t]he trial court is afforded broad discretion in supervising disclosure” (Di Mascio v. General Elec. Co., 307 AD2d 600, 601 [3d Dept 2003]; see Mitchell v. Stuart, 293 AD2d 906, 906 [3d Dept 2002]), and the Court of Appeals has explained that “[t]he words, ‘material and necessary’, are…to be interpreted liberally to require disclosure, upon request, of any facts bearing on the controversy which will assist preparation for trial by sharpening the issues and reducing delay and prolixity” (Allen v. Crowell-Collier Publ. Co., 21 NY2d 403, 406 [1968]; see Matter of Saratoga Prop. Devs., LLC v. Assessor of City of Saratoga Springs, 62 AD3d 1107, 1108-1109 [3d Dept 2009). As the Appellate Division, Third Department, has instructed. "[c]ourts must evaluate disclosure demands on a case-by-case basis with due regard for the strong policy supporting open disclosure, while balancing competing interests such as the demanding party’s need for the information, its possible relevance, the burden imposed on a party or nonparty by ordering disclosure, and the potential for confusion or delay” (Perez v. Fleischer, 112 AD3d 1157, 1158 [3d Dept 2014], lv dismissed 25 NY3d 985 [2015]). Moreover, “[i]f there is any possibility that the information is sought in good faith for possible use as evidence-in-chief or in rebuttal or for cross-examination, it should be considered evidence material…in the prosecution or defense” (Allen v. Crowell-Collier Publ. Co., 21 NY2d 403, 407 [1968] [internal quotation marks omitted]). In applying those principles to the personnel records at issue here, the Court concludes that while any personal identifying information contained in the records is not discoverable and must be redacted, the records must be disclosed to claimant. Defendant is directed to turn over to claimant the complete personnel files of CO Credo and Lt. Azzinaro, with all personal identifying information redacted, within thirty (30) days of this order. In the event that either party has an objection to the Court’s ruling, they may make any additional application they feel appropriate. SO ORDERED. Dated: January 16, 2024
