You are here: / / COUNTY COURT SHOULD HAVE FURTHER RESTRICTED DISCOVERY FOR THE PROTECTION...

COUNTY COURT SHOULD HAVE FURTHER RESTRICTED DISCOVERY FOR THE PROTECTION OF WITNESSES (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) County Court, determined certain aspects of the People’s application to restrict discovery for witness safety should have been granted:

… [T]he application to vacate or modify the order … is granted to the extent that the order is modified by deleting the provision thereof granting the People’s motion for a protective order only to the extent that the People may withhold the name of the confidential informant until 15 days prior to a scheduled pre-trial hearing or trial, and substituting therefor a provision granting the People’s motion for a protective order to the extent that (1) disclosure of the audio and video recordings of the narcotics sales shall be made to defense counsel only, to be viewed at the prosecutor’s office, (2) disclosure of the name and contact information of the confidential informant shall be delayed until the commencement of trial, and (3) disclosure of the names and work affiliation of the undercover personnel shall be delayed until the commencement of trial … . People v Jeanty, 2020 NY Slip Op 05555, Second Dept 10-7-20

 

You might also like
HOSPITAL NOT LIABLE FOR ACTS OF SURGEON WHO WAS NOT AN EMPLOYEE, ANALYTICAL CRITERIA OUTLINED.
Appropriate Statutes of Limitations and Accrual Dates Explained for “Breach of Fiduciary Duty,” Civil RICO,” and “Declaratory Judgment” Causes of Action
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT WAS NOT CLOSE ENOUGH TO ALLOW AN UNJUST ENRICHMENT ACTION, DEFENDANT’S ACTIONS COULD NOT HAVE CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S RELIANCE OR INDUCEMENT (SECOND DEPT
DEFENDANTS LIABLE UNDER A GRATUITOUS BAILMENT THEORY FOR DESTROYED GOODS; PROPER WAY TO CALCULATE DAMAGES FOR THE DESTROYED GOODS UNDER A CONTRACT THEORY EXPLAINED.
Assault by Another Student—Question Whether School District Had Notice of Dangerous Conduct Precluded Summary Judgment to Plaintiff
ABSENCE OF A TRANSLATOR’S AFFIDAVIT CONTRIBUTED TO DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO MAKE OUT A PRIMA FACIE CASE FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
To Be Entitled to Summary Judgment on a Labor Law 200 Cause of Action, the Defendant Must Demonstrate the Defendant (1) Did Not Control the Plaintiff’s Work and (2) Did Not Create or Have Constructive Knowledge of the Dangerous Condition
IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE, THE DEFENDANT’S ALLEGATION HE DID NOT SEE PLAINTIFF’S BRAKE LIGHTS DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT (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

PLAINTIFF HOMEOWNERS’ ACTION AGAINST THE INSURER FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT,... THE BANK DID NOT SUBMIT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF STANDING OR COMPLIANCE WITHE...