You are here: / / PROTECTIVE ORDER VACATED UPON EXPEDITED REVIEW (SECOND DEPT).

PROTECTIVE ORDER VACATED UPON EXPEDITED REVIEW (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, vacating the protective order issued by Supreme Court, determined defense counsel should have been heard in opposition to the application for the protective order:

… [T]he matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, to afford the defendant an opportunity to make arguments to that court with respect to the People’s application for a protective order.

Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court should have granted defense counsel’s request for an opportunity to be heard with respect to the People’s application for a protective order pursuant to CPL 245.70 … . … [T]he People advised this Court that they no longer oppose the application. People v Belfon, 2020 NY Slip Op 00519, Second Dept 1-27-20

 

You might also like
SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE MODIFIED A SO-ORDERED STIPULATION ENTERED BETWEEN LANDLORD AND TENANT REQUIRING MONTHLY USE AND OCCUPANCY PAYMENTS OF OVER $100,000 DURING THE COURT PROCEEDINGS STEMMING FROM THE LANDLORD’S NOTICE OF TERMINATION OF THE LEASE, SUPREME COURT IMPROPERLY REDUCED THE MONTHLY PAYMENTS TO ZERO BASED UPON THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY TO THE TENANT WHICH WAS ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN RENDERED WORTHLESS BY THE NOTICE OF TERMINATION, AS OPPOSED TO THE FAIR MARKET RENTAL VALUE OF THE PROPERTY FROM THE LANDLORD’S PERSPECTIVE (SECOND DEPT).
DOCUMENT PURPORTING TO CONSTITUTE A CONTRACT FOR THE SALE OF TWO PROPERTIES DID NOT SATISFY THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS, PLAINTIFF’S ACTION FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERT DID NOT SPECIALIZE IN THE RELEVANT AREA OF MEDICINE, HIS AFFIDAVIT THEREFORE DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT, THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE EMERGENCY EXCEPTION APPLIED TO THE GENERAL RULE A HOSPITAL IS NOT LIABLE FOR THE TREATMENT PROVIDED BY PRIVATE ATTENDING PHYSICIANS (SECOND DEPT).
LOST PROFITS PROPERLY AWARDED FOR WRONGFUL TERMINATION OF SUBCONTRACT; CRITERIA EXPLAINED.
THE PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE; THE JUDGE PRECLUDED CROSS-EXAMINATION OF PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT ABOUT WHETHER THE OTHER DOCTORS WHO CONSULTED ON PLAINTIFF’S TREATMENT DEPARTED FROM ACCEPTED PRACTICE BY FAILING TO DO FURTHER DIAGNOSTIC TESTING; IF SO, FAULT WOULD BE SHARED PURSUANT TO CPLR 1601 (SECOND DEPT).
FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 CAN BE RAISED AT ANY TIME; HERE IT WAS RAISED IN OPPOSITION TO THE MOTION TO CONFIRM THE REFEREE’S REPORT; THE PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WAS INSUFFICIENT (SECOND DEPT).
THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE DELEGATED THE COURT’S AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE MOTHER’S PARENTAL ACCESS; THE JUDGE LEFT IT TO MOTHER AND HER CHILD TO DETERMINE MOTHER’S PARENTAL ACCESS (SECOND DEPT).
POLICY EXCLUSION WAS AMBIGUOUS, INSURER HAD A DUTY TO DEFEND.

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

SUPREME COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION IN GRANTING A PROTECTIVE ORDER ALLOWING... THE INTERIM DECISION ISSUED BY SUPREME COURT WAS NOT THE EQUIVALENT OF AN ORDER;...