Zarn v. City of New York
| Decision Date | 01 November 1993 |
| Citation | 198 A.D.2d 220,603 N.Y.S.2d 503 |
| Parties | Kathleen Ann ZARN, etc., et al., Appellants, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Dickstein & Associates, New York City (Joseph J. Mainiero, Risa G. Dickstein and Leon Quintero, of counsel), for appellants.
O. Peter Sherwood, Corp. Counsel, New York City (Leonard Koerner and Ellen B. Fishman, of counsel), for the municipal respondents.
Lysaght, Lysaght & Kramer, P.C., Lake Success (Raymond E. Kerno and Elliot I. Susser, of counsel), for respondent Colleen DeForest.
Before THOMPSON, J.P., and SULLIVAN, RITTER and JOY, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In action to recover damages for wrongful death, negligence, intentional tort, and violation of civil rights, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Cusick, J.), dated June 7, 1991, which denied their motion for inspection and release of the personnel records of the defendant Colleen DeForest and granted the cross motion of the defendant City of New York for a protective order with respect to those records.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.
The plaintiff Kathleen Ann Zarn seeks, inter alia, damages for wrongful death arising out of the sudden suicide of her husband, Sergeant Sol Zarn, of the New York City Police Department. In connection therewith, she sought disclosure of the personnel records of the defendant Police Officer Colleen DeForest, the only witness to the suicide. The Supreme Court denied the motion and granted the cross motion of the defendant City of New York for a protective order. The court held that Mrs. Zarn did not make a clear showing of facts, as required by Civil Rights Law § 50-a, sufficient to warrant review of DeForest's personnel records. The court also found that DeForest did not waive the confidentiality of such information through her testimony at her examination before trial. We also reject the claim that DeForest waived the confidentiality of her files through her testimony at her deposition (see, People v. McHugh, 124 Misc.2d 823, 478 N.Y.S.2d 754), and agree with the other findings of the Supreme Court, Richmond County.
The plaintiff was required to offer, "in good faith * * * some factual predicate" for providing access to the personnel files so as to warrant an in camera review (People v. Gissendanner, 48 N.Y.2d 543, 550, 423...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mastroianni v. County of Suffolk
...Court's in camera review (see People v. Gissendanner, 48 N.Y.2d 543, 423 N.Y.S.2d 893, 399 N.E.2d 924 [1979]; Zarn v. City of New York, 198 A.D.2d 220, 603 N.Y.S.2d 503 [1993]; see also Matter of M. Farbman & Sons, Inc. v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 62 N.Y.2d 75, 476 N.Y.S.2d 69, ......
-
People v. Cintron
...materials to be used for impeachment purposes. (People v. Cepeno, 4 Misc.3d 134[A] [App Term, 2nd Dept 2004] citing Zarn v. City of New York 198 A.D.2d 220 [1993]. Defendant has failed to establish through “facts” presented, largely “upon information and belief” and largely without the nece......
-
Lepore v. Town of Greenburgh
...into police officers' personnel files for collateral materials to be used for impeachment purposes” (Zarn v. City of New York, 198 A.D.2d 220, 220–221 [2d Dept 1993] ). The standard of a “clear showing of facts sufficient to warrant the judge to request records for review” must be viewed li......
-
Blanco v. County of Suffolk, 2006 NY Slip Op 30583(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 11/9/2006)
...officer was the subject of prior complaints is insufficient to support such review and/or disclosure. See, Zarn v. City of New York, 198 A.D.2d 220, 603 N.Y.S.2d 503 (2nd Dep't, 1993); Jacker v. County of Suffolk et. al. ___ Misc 3d ___, Index No. 21472-2003 (Sup. Ct., Suffolk Co. The Count......