The defendant stands indicted for Criminal Sale of a Controlled Substance in the Third Degree and other related charges.

Subsequent to defendant's arrest on June 20, 2014, he filed a complaint with the Civilian Complaint Review Board, hereinafter "CCRB", against Detectives Brian Wood and Anthony Reyes along with two other individuals, alleging he was the victim of excessive physical force and unauthorized strip searches. The complaint resulted in an investigation conducted by the CCRB, Number 201407431.

Pursuant to subpoena, defendant seeks production of "Any and all records (including but not limited to audio recordings) and documents relating to Civilian Complaint Review Board Case Number 201407431 filed on behalf of Keita Codrington, involving members of the New York City Police Department, and any other police personnel included in these reports."

The defendant has provided proof of service of its subpoena and the court's order of December 2, 2015, upon Detectives Brian Wood, Christopher Ward, Antonio Santana and Lt. Anthony Reyes. Service was effected on December 21, 2015.

Pursuant to the order, the above named officers were given until January 4, 2016 to respond. To date no response was received.

The CCRB acknowledged possession of records related to a closed investigation Number 201407431.

The CCRB moves pursuant to C.P.L. § 240.50 to quash the defendant's subpoena duces tecum seeking what the CCRB considers confidential records and for a protective order preserving the confidentiality of CCRB's investigative records and work. The CCRB asserts that: (1) the subpoena was issued contrary to CPL Art. 610, CPLR 2307 and Civil Rights Law § 50-a, (2) the defendant is seeking improper discovery from a non-party concerning unrelated and irrelevant information, and (3) the records sought by the subpoena include confidential investigative work product protected by the public interest privilege. Of note, the CCRB recognizes the defendant's legitimate interest in the taped recordings of the interviews in its possession and the CCRB final report.

The motion to quash is denied. However, the court is limiting disclosure of the [*2]documents requested to the following. The CCRB is directed to provide the court for in camera review, its final report with respect to its investigation Number 201407431, as well as any tape recorded interviews generated with respect to any witnesses interviewed in connection with the investigation.

In anticipation of the court's disclosure order, in open court today, the CCRB complied with the court's directive.

The court has reviewed, in camera, the CCRB final report and attendant materials, and orders its disclosure. The report indicates that the investigation was closed because the complainant, the defendant in the instant case, was "uncooperative", in so far as he would not submit to an interview with the CCRB on the advice of counsel given the open criminal matter. As a result, no police witnesses were interviewed. The materials provided to the court also consist of several phone calls which include the original complaint and attempts to arrange an interview with the defendant. These calls are to be disclosed as well. Copies to the assigned Assistant District Attorney.

This opinion constitutes the decision and order of the court.