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
DEFENDANTS’ PARTICIPATION IN A SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE DID NOT WAIVE THEIR RIGHT TO MOVE TO DISMISS THE FORECLOSURE ACTION AS ABANDONED PURSUANT TO CPLR 3215 (SECOND DEPT).
THE CHILD’S FOSTER PARENTS WERE PERSONS LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CARE OF THE CHILD AND WERE ENTITLED TO A HEARING BEFORE THE CHILD WAS REMOVED FROM THEIR CARE (SECOND DEPT).
MATERNAL GRANDMOTHER WAS A PERSON LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CARE OF THE CHILD AND THEREFORE WAS SUBJECT TO A NEGLECT FINDING (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE BUILDING OWNER WAS AN ADDITIONAL INSURED ON THE LESSEE’S POLICY, THE INSURER HAD NO DUTY TO DEFEND AN ACTION STEMMING FROM A SLIP AND FALL IN THE BUILDING PARKING LOT, THE LEASE DID NOT CALL FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE PARKING LOT BY THE LESSEE.
Review Criteria for Actions by Zoning Boards of Appeal
Flaws in Causes of Action Stemming from the Alleged Breach of a Joint Venture Agreement Explained
A Forged Deed Is Void Ab Initio and Conveys Nothing to a Bona Fide Purchaser or Encumbrancer
EMAILS INADVERTENTLY PROVIDED TO PLAINTIFF WERE NOT PROTECTED BY ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ISSUED A PROTECTIVE ORDER (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

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