Bureau le constitutes a personnel record, or that a particular
FOIL exemption applies. In this regard the court notes the
case of Rodriguez v City of New York (222 AD2d 317 [1995])
wherein the appellate court ruled that the Internal Aairs
Division le concerning the incident at issue was provided to
the IAS Court for inspection, and that the court performed its
statutory function of reviewing the le to determine what was
relevant and material (citing Civil Rights Law § 50-a [2], [3]).
1006 181 MISCELLANEOUS REPORTS, 2d SERIES
It appears, therefore, that even if an Internal Aairs Bureau
le can be said to constitute a personnel le, it is still subject
to the court's in camera review for the purpose of ascertaining
what information, if any, contained therein is discoverable.
In support of the motion the plainti has submitted deposi-
tion transcripts of at least two of the police ocers involved in
the incident; transcripts of certain 911 tapes, and a transcript
of a statement made by one of the ocers to Internal Aairs. A
review of the transcripts reveals that substantial inquiry was
made of the ocers as to what they told Internal Aairs. The
central facts of this case are that the decedent was stabbed by
her husband; that there was an order of protection, and that
the police did not arrest the assailant. These facts, coupled
with the review of the 911 tapes, the interview with the
Internal Aairs ocer and the depositions lead the court to
conclude that there is sucient factual predicate showing of
materiality and relevancy in the materials sought to warrant
the court's in camera review (see, People v Gissendanner, 48
NY2d 543 [1979]; Zarn v City of New York, 198 AD2d 220
[1993]; see also, Matter of Farbman & Sons v New York City