__________________________________
                                                                                         Index Number..00940/90
YICK HONG WONG, individually and as
f/n/g of DAVID WONG, Infant over the age of
14 years,                                                                             Motion Date....6/29/99

                                                                                          Motion Cal.
                                               Plaintiffs,                              Number............12

                -against-                                                             Trial Cal.
                                                                                         Number............
THE CITY OF NEW YORK and THE NEW
YORK CITY BOARD OF EDUCATION,

                                                 Defendants.
___________________________________

  This action concerns an in-school student-on-student assault. The plaintiff seeks the production of the names and addresses of other students in the room at the time, as eyewitnesses. Normally, of course, all parties are entitled to the production of the names and addresses of known witnesses (see, Skowronski v F & J Meat Packers, Inc., 210 AD2d 392), and this right supersedes any objection the witness may have to the disclosure. Here, however, the defendant objects that the provisions of Federal law, specifically the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, 20 U.S.C. 1232g(b)(2)(B), commonly known as the Buckley amendment, preclude the disclosure of the names and addresses of students. The Court of Appeals has left this question open (Matter of Terry D., 81 N.Y.2d 1042). In dissent, however, from that opinion, Judge Smith noted that the Buckley amendment, by its terms, does not prohibit a court from requiring disclosure, but imposes severe sanctions on a school system which fails to abide by the statutory mandate to give advance notice to students and their parents. Judge Smith also noted that names and addresses are categorized by the federal statute as Adirectory information,@ and treated differently than other sorts of records. Directory information may be made public if parents are given an opportunity to opt out (Matter of Terry D., supra, 81 N.Y.2d 1042, fn. p. 1047).

The court believes that disclosure of the names and addresses of student eyewitnesses would not violate the purposes of the federal statute, and also that the school should be given every opportunity to comply with the notice requirements. Accordingly, the parties are directed to appear before the court on December 15, 1999, at 9:30 a.m. At that time, the defendant Board of Education is directed to have ready for the court's in camera inspection the names and addresses of any student eyewitnesses to the occurrence sued upon. In the interim, the defendant Board of Education may communicate with the parents and students involved to ascertain whether they object to the disclosure of their names and addresses. The court will entertain such objections whether voiced by the students or parents in open court, in writing, through counsel or through counsel for the defendants. At this time, the court reserves decision on whether disclosure may be ordered over the objection of the students or parents.

Dated: October 19, 1999 ____________________

J.S.C.