You are here: / / SOME RESTRICTIONS ON DISCLOSURE SHOULD HAVE BEEN IMPOSED BY COUNTY COURT...
, ,

SOME RESTRICTIONS ON DISCLOSURE SHOULD HAVE BEEN IMPOSED BY COUNTY COURT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing County Court, determined some restrictions on making discovery available to the defense should have been imposed:

Applying the factors set forth in CPL 245.70(4), including the concerns for witness safety and protection, I conclude that the County Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the People’s request in its entirety. Under the particular facts and circumstances of this case … the County Court should have directed disclosure of the audio and video recordings of the narcotics sales be made available forthwith to defense counsel only, to be viewed at the prosecutor’s office. Additionally, the County Court should have delayed disclosure of the names, addresses, and contact information of the confidential informant and undercover personnel until the commencement of the trial. People v Zayas, 2020 NY Slip Op 05236, Second Dept 9-30-20

 

You might also like
Mistake in Name of Party Did Not Warrant Striking Candidate’s Name from Ballot
Forum Selection Clause Requiring All Enforcement Actions to be Brought in Surrogate’s Court Enforced 
Questions of Fact Re: Whether Municipality Created the Dangerous Condition Thereby Negating the Written-Notice Requirement
COURT IMPROPERLY DELEGATED ITS AUTHORITY BY ALLOWING MOTHER TO CANCEL VISITATION IF FATHER WAS MORE THAN 15 MINUTES LATE (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT DRIVER ATTEMPTED TO RAISE A FEIGNED FACTUAL ISSUE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BY CONTRADICTING A STATEMENT ATTRIBUTED TO DEFENDANT IN THE POLICE REPORT, PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS INTERSECTION TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE HOSPITAL DEFENDANTS’ EXPERT’S AFFIDAVIT DID NOT LAY A SUFFICIENT FOUNDATION FOR THE EXPERT’S OPINIONS ON MATTERS OUTSIDE OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY; THE HOSPITAL DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
WHETHER THE AGREEMENT TO ARBITRATE IS VALID IS A THRESHOLD ISSUE FOR THE COURT, NOT THE ARBITRATOR (SECOND DEPT). ​
EXPOSED TREE ROOT OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF TRIPPED AND FELL WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS. ​

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

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS 1999 MURDER CONVICTION BASED UPON THE... PLAINTIFF BANK FAILED TO SHOW COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF THE MORTGAGE...