1991) (ordering disclosure of Attorney General’s investigation records where no assurance of confidentiality was made in this case) Matter of Spruils, N.Y.L.J. City of New York, 64 A.D.2d 980, 408 N.Y.S.2d 811 (2d Dep’t 1978) (denying access to identities of confidential informants as well as confidential information relating to criminal investigation) Ragusa v. Boehm, 71 A.D.2d 810, 419 N.Y.S.2d 23 (4th Dep’t 1979) (requiring disclosure of identities of confidential informants was an abuse of discretion) Walker v. James, 86 A.D.2d 744, 447 N.Y.S.2d 781 (4th Dep’t 1982), appeal dismissed, 56 N.Y.2d 502, 435 N.E.2d 1099, 450 N.Y.S.2d 1023 (1982) (denying access to records of complaints against police officers which might identify a confidential source) State Police v. Kurlander, 98 A.D.2d 14, 469 N.Y.S.2d 820 (4th Dep’t 1983) (denying access to interviews made under promise of confidentiality in connection with investigation which did not lead to filing of charges) Gannett Co.

New York City Police Dep’t, 121 A.D.2d 230, 503 N.Y.S.2d 722 (1st Dep’t 1986) (granting access to police investigation reports after redacting names and statements of confidential witnesses) Hawkins v. Strojnowski, 129 A.D.2d 700, 514 N.Y.S.2d 463 (3d Dep’t 1987), motion for leave to appeal denied, 70 N.Y.2d 871, 518 N.E.2d 5, 523 N.Y.S.2d 493 (1987) (denying access to names, addresses and statements of confidential witnesses) Radio City Music Hall Productions v. City of Auburn, 147 A.D.2d 900 (4th Dep’t 1989) (denying access to affidavits in police investigation) Allen v. City of New York Police Dep’t., 153 A.D.2d 515, 544 N.Y.S.2d 356, (1st Dep’t 1989), leave denied, 75 N.Y.2d 707 (1990) (granting disclosure of police investigative file where witnesses were not promised anonymity) Auburn Publisher Inc. Henry, 173 A.D.2d 825, 572 N.Y.S.2d 635 (2d Dep’t 1991) (granting access to conviction record) Cornell University v. Slade, 179 A.D.2d 558, 579 N.Y.S.2d 59 (1st Dep’t 1992), motion for leave to appeal denied, 79 N.Y.2d 758 (1992) (records of a “buy operation” were compiled for law enforcement purposes and if disclosed would reveal confidential sources and information) Geames v. Grimes, 179 A.D.2d 602, 579 N.Y.S.2d 357, (1st Dep’t 1992) (granting access to police memo books of investigation where no assertion of promise of confidentiality and confidentiality, if given, was lost since witnesses later testified) Ennis v.

Fischer, 74 A.D.3d 1399, 902 N.Y.S.2d 212 (3d Dep’t 2010) (“Statements by a witness must be disclosed absent a showing that he or she was a confidential informant or requested or was promised anonymity, or that his or her life or safety would be endangered by disclosure.”) Laureano v. Law § 87(2)(e)(iii) (McKinney 1988).įor cases on confidentiality, see Matter of Exoneration Initiative v New York City Police Dep’t, 114 A.D.3d 436, 980 N.Y.S.2d 73 (1st Dep’t 2014) (holding portions of a record must be disclosed in the absence of any evidence that informant received an express or implied promise of confidentiality) Matter of Gomez v.

An agency may deny access to records or portions thereof that are compiled for law enforcement purposes and which, if disclosed, would identify a confidential source or disclose confidential information relating to criminal investigations.

Confidential informant case law