You are here: / / THE HARASSMENT-RELATED SPEECH PROHIBITIONS IN THE ORDER OF PROTECTION DID...
, ,

THE HARASSMENT-RELATED SPEECH PROHIBITIONS IN THE ORDER OF PROTECTION DID NOT VIOLATE THE FIRST AMENDMENT BUT THE PROVISION PROHIBITING RESPONDENT FROM DISCSUSSING THE PETITIONER OR THE FAMILY OFFENSE PROCEEDING WAS STRUCK FROM THE ORDER OF PROTECTION AS UNNECESSARY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department affirmed the finding respondent committed the family offense of harassment by sending email about petitioner’s personal matters to 53 people. Although the harassment prohibitions in the order of protection did not violate the Firs Amendment, the provision in the order of protection which prohibited respondent from discussing the petitioner or the proceedings was struck as unnecessary:

Respondent contends that the provision of the order prohibiting him from discussing petitioner or the case with anyone familiar with petitioner violated his First Amendment right to freedom of speech. To be sure, respondent’s repeatedly sending petitioner emails articulating his unwanted opinions about her, her mother and their family dynamic or making petitioner aware of the emails he sent to several third parties broadcasting those opinions by blind-copying her on those messages is not protected by the First Amendment, because those repeated and unwanted communications serve no legitimate purpose … . However, because the harassment is adequately addressed by the provision that respondent stay away from petitioner and not contact her, we delete the prohibition against his discussing petitioner or the proceeding … . Matter of Sophia M. v James M., 2021 NY Slip Op 03992, First Dept 6-22-21

 

You might also like
Insufficient Foundation for Introduction of Grand Jury Testimony as Past Recollection Recorded—No Showing Recollection Was “Fairly Fresh” and Accurate at the Time of the Grand Jury Appearance
THE MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED ON THE GROUND THE PROPOSED CHANGES WERE NOT “REDLINED” (FIRST DEPT).
RESPONDENT CANDIDATE FOR THE NYS ASSEMBLY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE HE MAINTAINED A RESIDENCE IN NEW YORK FOR FIVE YEARS; PETITIONERS’ APPLICATION TO INVALIDATE RESPONDENT’S CANDIDACY SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
No Common Law Negligence Cause of Action to Recover for Injuries Caused by Dog, Even Where Dog Owner May Be Negligent
SIDEWALK DEFECT WAS NOT TRIVIAL AS A MATTER OF LAW, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
FAILURE TO INCLUDE CITY, STATE AND/OR ZIP CODES OF THE CANDIDATES’ RESIDENCES DID NOT INVALIDATE THE DESIGNATING PETITIONS (FIRST DEPT).
TO BE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT BASED ON A PATIENT’S FAILURE TO SHOW UP FOR AN INDEPENDENT MEDICAL EXAMINATION (IME), THE NO-FAULT INSURER MUST SHOW BOTH THAT THE PATIENT DID NOT SHOW UP AND THE REQUEST FOR THE IME AND THE SCHEDULING OF THE IME COMPLIED WITH THE REQUIRED TIME-FRAMES (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANTS-ATTORNEYS’ MOTION TO DISMISS THE LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION BASED UPON UNDENIABLE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, AS WELL AS OTHER GROUNDS, SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST 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

THE LANDLORD AND GENERAL CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR THE INSTALLATION OF AN UNAUTHORIZED... PLAINTIFF BANK’S REPRESENTATIVE RELIED ON UNIDENTIFIED DOCUMENTS WHICH...