You are here: / / COURT MAY NOT PROHIBIT DISCLOSURE ON A GROUND NOT RAISED IN OPPOSITION...

COURT MAY NOT PROHIBIT DISCLOSURE ON A GROUND NOT RAISED IN OPPOSITION TO DISCLOSURE.

The Third Department, finding Supreme Court should have allowed disclosure of some of the requested documents, noted that a court cannot justify withholding documents on grounds not raised in opposition to disclosure:

A court is limited to considering only those exemptions to disclosure that are invoked by the party from whom disclosure is sought … . Accordingly, the court should not have relied on a justification for withholding documents … that was not raised by respondent. Matter of Rose v Albany County Dist. Attorney’s Off., 2016 NY Slip Op 05536, 3rd Dept 7-14-16

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW (FOIL) (COURT MAY NOT PROHIBIT DISCLOSURE ON A GROUND NOT RAISED IN OPPOSITION TO DISCLOSURE)

You might also like
JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED A WITNESS WAS AN ACCOMPLICE AS A MATTER OF LAW (REQUIRING CORROBORATION OF THE WITNESS’ TESTIMONY), REQUEST FOR ACCOMPLICE INSTRUCTION DURING JURY DELIBERATIONS PRESERVED THE ISSUE FOR APPEAL.
CLAIMANT’S APPLICATION TO SERVE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DESPITE THE ABSENCE OF A VALID EXCUSE FOR THE DELAY (THIRD DEPT).
INTERPRETER WAS AN EMPLOYEE, NOT AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR.
FAILURE TO CLARIFY WHETHER APPEAL WAIVER WAS PART OF THE PLEA AGREEMENT RENDERED THE WAIVER INVALID.
DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN RESENTENCED ON THE ORIGINAL CHARGE PURSUANT TO CPL 420.10 FOR FAILURE TO PAY RESTITUTION; THE JUDGE DID NOT MAKE THE STATUTORILY REQUIRED FINDINGS FOR RESENTENCING UNDER THAT STATUTE; RESENTENCE VACATED (THIRD DEPT).
Immunity for Land Owners Allowing Use of Land by Snowmobilers
ONCE A COURT SENTENCES A DEFENDANT TO SHOCK INCARCERATION, THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY SUPERVISION (DOCCS) DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE THE DEFENDANT IS NOT ELIGIBLE; APPEAL HEARD AS AN EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE (THIRD DEPT).
CLAIMANT DELIVERY DRIVER WAS NOT AN EMPLOYEE OF NEL, A BUSINESS LOGISTICS COMPANY WHICH ASSIGNED CLAIMANT TO DELIVER AUTO PARTS FOR ITS CLIENT, ANY-PART AUTO STORES (THIRD DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

HEARSAY EVIDENCE OF CHILD’S STATEMENT NOT CORROBORATED, CUSTODY MODIFICATION... COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE JURY INSTRUCTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GIVEN BECAUSE PLAINTIFF’S...