You are here: / / PEOPLE’S REQUEST TO WITHHOLD DISCOVERY UNTIL FIFTEEN DAYS BEFORE...

PEOPLE’S REQUEST TO WITHHOLD DISCOVERY UNTIL FIFTEEN DAYS BEFORE A HEARING OR TRIAL, FOR THE WITNESSES’ SAFETY, SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, in a memorandum which did not discuss the facts, determined the People’s request to withhold discovery until 15 days before a hearing or trial, for the witnesses’ safety, should have been granted:

Pursuant to CPL 245.70(6), a party who has unsuccessfully sought, or opposed the granting of, a protective order relating to the name, address, contact information, or statements of a person may obtain expedited review by an individual justice of the intermediate appellate court to which an appeal from a judgment of conviction would be taken. Where, as here, “the issue involves balancing the defendant’s interest in obtaining information for defense purposes against concerns for witness safety and protection, the question is appropriately framed as whether the determination made by the trial court was a provident exercise of discretion” … .

Applying these standards to the matters at hand, I conclude that the Supreme Court’s determination to grant the People’s request only to the extent indicated was an improvident exercise of discretion. Under the particular facts and circumstances presented, concerns for witness safety and protection far outweigh the usefulness of the discovery of the material or information in question. People v Morales-Aguilar, 2020 NY Slip Op 04721, Second Dept 8-24-20

 

You might also like
Question of Fact About Property Owner’s Liability for Condition of Sidewalk Raised
A CASH ACCOUNT AGREEMENT WHICH MEMORIALIZED A REVERSE MORTGAGE WAS NOT A NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE, THEREFORE THE HOLDER OF THE CASH ACCOUNT AGREEMENT DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO FORECLOSE (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS A SPECIAL EMPLOYEE, HIS ONLY AVAILABLE REMEDY FOR HIS ON THE JOB INJURY WAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION (SECOND DEPT).
THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO BRING THE ACTION AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF THE MORTGAGE AND RPAPL 1304 (SECOND DEPT).
THE JUDGE’S LAW CLERK WAS A DA WHO HAD WORKED ON DEFENDANT’S CASE; THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE RECUSED HIMSELF FROM THE SENTENCING (SECOND DEPT).
RESOLUTION IMPOSING A SURCHARGE ON DEVELOPERS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF WATER MAINS DECLARED VOID, WATER AUTHORITY FAILED TO PROVIDE PROPER NOTICE BEFORE ENACTING THE RESOLUTION.
DEFENDANT DID NOT PROVE IT HAD A PRESCRIPTIVE EASEMENT ALLOWING EFFLUENT AND STORM WATER TO BE DISCHARGED ONTO PLAINTIFFS’ PROPERTY, ON APPEAL PLAINTIFFS AWARDED JUDGMENT ON THEIR TRESPASS ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF MORTGAGE COMPANY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION AND THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF NEGOTIATED IN GOOD FAITH PURSUANT TO CPLR 3408 (f) (SECOND 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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

WHETHER MOTHER MOVED MORE THAN 40 MILES WAS AN ISSUE IN THIS MODIFICATION OF... PETITION FOR A LICENSE PURSUANT TO RPAPL 881 TO ENTER A CONDOMINIUM TO MAKE...