You are here: / / SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE RESTRICTED THE RELEASE OF THE NAMES OF COMPLAINANTS...

SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE RESTRICTED THE RELEASE OF THE NAMES OF COMPLAINANTS AND COMPLAINANTS’ PARENTS FOR THEIR PROTECTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined Supreme Court should have restricted the release of the names of complainants and their parents for their protection:

… [T]he application by the People pursuant to CPL 245.70(6) is granted to the extent that the order … is modified by directing that the disclosure of the names of complainants 1, 2, and 3 shall be delayed until the commencement of the trial and shall be provided to defense counsel only, and that the disclosure of the names of the parents of complainants 1, 2, and 3 shall be delayed until 15 days prior to the commencement of the trial and shall be provided to defense counsel only … . People v Harrigan, 2020 NY Slip Op 05612, Second Dept 10-8-20

 

You might also like
IN A MATTER OF FIRST IMPRESSION, THE SECOND DEPARTMENT HELD THAT THE 90-DAY TIME-LIMIT FOR FILING A NOTICE OF CLAIM AGAINST A SCHOOL DISTRICT ALLEGING NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION CAN BE TOLLED UNDER THE “CONTINUING WRONG” DOCTRINE; HERE IT WAS ALLEGED PLAINTIFF-STUDENT WAS ABUSED BY OTHER STUDENTS BEGINNING IN OCTOBER 2017; THE NOTICE OF CLAIM WAS FILED IN FEBRUARY 2018 (SECOND DEPT). ​
THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT WAS THE HOLDER OR ASSIGNEE OF THE NOTE AT THE TIME THE ACTION TO RECORD THE MORTGAGE WAS BROUGHT; THE BANK DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO BRING THE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
At Will Employee Can Not Use “Fraudulent Inducement” Theory Re: Acceptance-of-Employment Offer.
PLAINTIFF’S FALL FROM A LOW CONCRETE RETAINING WALL TO THE GROUND WAS NOT THE TYPE OF ELEVATION-RELATED INCIDENT COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240(1) (SECOND DEPT).
AFFIRMATION CONTESTING SERVICE DID NOT CONFORM TO NEW YORK LAW AND THEREFORE DID NOT REBUT THE PROCESS SERVER’S AFFIDAVIT (SECOND DEPT).
HEARING OFFICER’S FAILURE TO GATHER EVIDENCE REQUESTED BY THE PETITIONER DEPRIVED PETITIONER OF A FAIR HEARING, DETERMINATION ANNULLED.
LIABILITY OF MEMBERS OF A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, PRECLUSION OF FRAUD AND NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION CAUSES ACTION WHICH DUPLICATE BREACH OF CONTRACT ALLEGATIONS, AND CRITERIA FOR A RICO MAIL FRAUD CAUSE OF ACTION DISCUSSED IN SOME DEPTH.
NOTICE OF CROSS MOTION DID NOT INCLUDE THE RELIEF SOUGHT OR THE GROUNDS FOR RELIEF AS REQUIRED BY CPLR 2214 (a), CROSS MOTION PROPERLY DISMISSED (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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

DEFENDANT INSURER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE “BAD... ALTHOUGH THE INCONSISTENT VERDICT ARGUMENT WAS NOT PRESERVED, THE FAILURE TO...