Conversations intercepted by wiretap may be released to a private litigant for use in a civil action on a showing of good cause, a New Jersey appeals court ruled Tuesday in a case of first impression.

The Appellate Division affirmed orders by Superior Court Judge Marilyn Clark of Passaic County compelling disclosure of wiretap information to the estate of Frank Lagano for use in a civil suit against the Bergen County Prosecutor's Office. The state argued that New Jersey wiretapping statutes do not permit discovery of wiretap evidence in civil litigation, but the appeals court said nothing in the statute or case law suggested such a limit.

But the appeals court also vacated the orders to the extent that they allowed disclosure of information revealing the roles of confidential informants, and remanded for consideration of whether disclosure will reveal a person was a confidential informant for a particular agency.

Lagano's estate sought wiretap evidence from a 2004 joint investigation, labeled “Operation Jersey Boyz” by authorities, which focused on illegal gambling in an East Rutherford, New Jersey, restaurant. Lagano was one of more than 40 people arrested as a result of the investigation.

Lagano was shot and killed in 2007 in the parking lot of the East Brunswick diner he owned. That crime remains unsolved. His estate claims that he was killed because the Bergen County Prosecutor's Office blew his cover after he became a confidential informant.

Tuesday's suit was the second court ruling in a week's time to favor the estate in its battle with the BCPO. The ruling was issued in a state court case seeking to recover $264,428 in cash that the prosecutor's office seized from safe deposit boxes belonging to Lagano and hIs wife during the Jersey Boyz investigation, but which the estate maintains was not connected to any criminal activity. On March 14, in a related suit brought by the estate in U.S. District Court accusing the BCPO of blowing Lagano's cover, the agency lost its bid to compel testimony of a lawyer who had represented the detective who induced Lagano to become an informant.

In the state court case, the appeals court rejected the state's contention that New Jersey statutes limited disclosures of communications intercepted by wiretap to criminal cases.

“Nothing in the language of [the state wiretap statute] restricts it to criminal prosecutions. Rather, its plain language allows disclosure 'upon a showing of good cause before a court of competent jurisdiction,' namely, the Superior Court, without restriction to criminal cases,” the appeals court said.

In ruling that disclosure of wiretap evidence for civil litigation is permissible on a showing of good cause, Judges Joseph Yannotti, Harry Carroll and George Leone disapproved of a contrary ruling from a 1986 Law Division case, In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Spinelli. In that case, a Salem County judge denied an application by the Penns Grove Police Department to obtain wiretap recordings made by the Salem County Prosecutor's Office. The department sought to obtain the recordings for evidence in a disciplinary case against one of its officers, who was accused of making obscene calls to a local woman.

The Appellate Division said the court in Spinelli had provided a faulty interpretation of §17(c) of the wiretap statute when it concluded that the statute only applied to criminal proceedings.

Eric Kleiner, the Englewood lawyer representing Lagano's estate, called the ruling a “significant victory in our continuing battle for the pursuit of justice in this tragic case.”

“Their statutory interpretation is a major victory for the cause of civil rights,” Kleiner said of the judges' ruling. “It's a major, decisive victory for potential civil rights litigants who have been wronged by government overreaching.”

A spokesman for the Attorney General's Office, Lee Moore, declined to comment on the ruling. A spokeswoman for the Bergen County Prosecutor's Office did not respond to a request for comment.