juncture, except the request of the plainti for the production
of the ‘‘Internal Aairs Bureau investigation le relative to the
incident of September 5, 1985’’.
Given the gravity of the issue, this court directed the plainti
to le an appropriate application, which has been made by no-
tice of motion and responded to by the ling of opposing papers.
The question to be resolved is the ability of the plainti to
obtain the Internal Aairs Bureau investigation le relative to
the September 5, 1985 incident. Resolution of the issue involves
the interplay of section 50-a of the Civil Rights Law, regarding
the condentiality of the personnel records of police ocers,
the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) contained in sections
84 to 90 of the Public Ocers Law and the rules for pretrial
disclosure as contained in CPLR article 31 (see, Matter of Farb-
man & Sons v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 62 NY2d
75 [1984]; Matter of Daily Gazette Co. v City of Schenectady,
242 AD2d 164 [1998], revd on other grounds 93 NY2d 145
[1999]; Cornell Univ. v City of N. Y. Police Dept., 153 AD2d 515
[1989], lv denied 75 NY2d 707 [1990]).
Under FOIL government agencies have a broad duty of
disclosure and agency records are presumptively available for
public inspection and copying unless they fall within one of
several categories of statutory exemptions which allow agen-
MASTROIANNI v SUFFOLK COUNTY [181 Misc 2d 1003]1005
cies to withhold certain records (see, Matter of Hanig v State of
N. Y. Dept. of Motor Vehicles, 79 NY2d 106 [1992]; Matter of
Daily Gazette v City of Schenectady, 242 AD2d 164, supra).
Inasmuch as FOIL is designed to grant the public ‘‘maximum
access to the records of government’’ the exemptions available
thereunder are to be narrowly construed, with the agency seek-