Disclosure - Scope of Disclosure - Internal Affairs Bureau File

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Mitchell J. Danziger, J.), entered March 28, 2024, which, following an in camera review, denied plaintiff's motion to compel defendant City of New York to disclose the Internal Affairs Bureau (IAB) file pertaining to prior complaints involving defendant Captain Jeffrey Brienza, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Upon review of the sealed records, we determine that the motion court providently exercised its discretion in denying plaintiff's motion to compel disclosure of defendant Brienza's IAB file. The incident or incidents recorded in the IAB file occurred some 14 years before the incidents alleged in the complaint and were dissimilar to the conduct alleged in the complaint (see Badia v City of New York, 214 AD3d 551, 552-553 [1st Dept 2023]). Given the dissimilarity and remoteness in time of the incident(s) in the IAB file, the court also properly considered their lack of substantiation (cf. Bradley v City of New York, 2005 WL 2508253, *1, 2005 US Dist LEXIS 22419, *3-4 [SD NY, Oct. 3, 2005, No. 04CIV8411RWSMHD] [unsubstantiated complaints may be relevant "depending on the nature of the accusations" or if the complaints "reflect a pattern" of behavior]). Accordingly, even under a liberal discovery standard, disclosure was properly denied since the information sought was not material and necessary (see Manley v New York City Hous. Auth., 190 AD2d 600, 600 [1st Dept 1993]). Concur—Kern, J.P., Kennedy, Friedman, Shulman, O'Neill Levy, JJ.