You are here: / / ALTHOUGH IT IS NOT SETTLED WHETHER THE RAPE SHIELD LAW APPLIES TO A CIVIL...
, , ,

ALTHOUGH IT IS NOT SETTLED WHETHER THE RAPE SHIELD LAW APPLIES TO A CIVIL PROCEEDING, SUPREME COURT HAD THE AUTHORITY TO PROHIBIT THE QUESTIONING OF PLAINTIFF’S DAUGHTER ABOUT HER SEXUAL HISTORY TO PREVENT EMBARRASSMENT AND HARASSMENT IN THIS NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION CASE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department upheld Supreme Court’s protective order prohibiting plaintiff’s child from being questioned about her sexual history. The complaint alleged the child was raped during a sleep over at defendants’ home. The complaint alleged several theories of liability, including negligent supervision. Supreme Court held that the Rape Shield Law applied to this civil case. The Third Department determined it did not need to reach that issue, holding that the court had the authority to prohibit the testimony to protect the child from embarrassment:

… Supreme Court was required to balance plaintiff’s concern that the child’s sexual history is irrelevant, and that questions of this nature are nothing more than a form of intimidation and embarrassment, against defendants’ argument that the child had a motive to fabricate the allegations of the assault because of a purported pregnancy. The record reveals that Supreme Court undertook a balancing of these concerns.

We find that plaintiff met her burden of showing annoyance and embarrassment. The child’s sexual history, sexual conduct and pregnancies are not relevant or material to the elements of the causes of action for negligence, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress or loss of services … . Moreover, it has been determined that there is limited value to testimony concerning the sexual past of a victim of a sexual assault; instead, it often serves only to harass the victim and confuse the jurors … . Lisa I. v Manikas, 2020 NY Slip Op 02846, Third Dept 5-14-20

 

You might also like
TERMINATION OF MOTHER’S SUPERVISED VISITATION IS A “DRASTIC REMEDY” WHICH MUST BE SUPPORTED BY “SUBSTANTIAL PROOF” CONTINUED VISITATION “WOULD BE HARMFUL TO THE CHILD;” THE PROOF HERE DID NOT MEET THOSE CRITERIA (THIRD DEPT). ​
Election Poll Worker Not an Employee—Not Entitled to Unemployment Insurance Benefits
Confinement in Special Housing Unit Was Harsh and Excessive Punishment—No Showing Petitioner Was a Threat to Institutional Safety
Extraordinary Circumstances Justified Award of Primary Physical Custody to Nonparent–Criteria Described
Imposition of Separate and Contradictory Permanency Goals for Father and Mother Disallowed
FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED MOTHER’S VISITATION PETITION FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE (THIRD DEPT).
Slip and Fall Suit Against Out-Of-Possession Landlord Properly Dismissed
Lump Sum Settlement with Third Party Barred Transfer of Employer’s Liability for Future Medical Payments to the Special Fund

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 © 2024 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, TERMINATED THE GUARDIANSHIP OF AN INCAPACITATED... PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED AND...