You are here: / / REPORTER WHO INTERVIEWED A MURDER SUSPECT WAS ENTITLED TO A WRIT OF PROHIBITION...
, , ,

REPORTER WHO INTERVIEWED A MURDER SUSPECT WAS ENTITLED TO A WRIT OF PROHIBITION PREVENTING THE ENFORCEMENT OF A SUBPOENA TO TESTIFY AT THE SUSPECT’S TRIAL; THE PEOPLE DID NOT MEET THE CRITERIA OF CIVIL RIGHTS LAW 79-H, THE NEW YORK SHIELD LAW, WHICH PROTECTS REPORTERS FROM SUBPOENAS WHEN THE REPORTER’S TESTIMONY IS NOT “CRITICAL OR NECESSARY” TO THE PEOPLE’S CASE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Fisher, determined the petitioner, a reporter who had interviewed a murder suspect (Ramsaran) prior to his conviction (which was overturned), was entitled to a writ of prohibition preventing the enforcement of a subpoena to testify at the suspect’s second murder trial  The People did not meet the criteria required by Civil Rights Law 79-h known as the New York Shield Law:

… [P]etitioner has made a sufficient showing that, if in error, respondent (County Court Judge) exceeded his jurisdiction and power in denying petitioner’s motion to quash the subpoena and in ordering her to testify to the information that she obtained in her capacity as a journalist in contravention of Civil Rights Law § 79-h. * * *

To overcome the qualified privilege afforded to petitioner under the New York Shield Law, it was incumbent on the People to make “a clear and specific showing that the news: (i) is highly material and relevant; (ii) is critical or necessary to the maintenance of a party’s claim, defense or proof of an issue material thereto; and (iii) is not obtainable from any alternative source” … . * * *

Even accepting that the information was “highly material and relevant” to the prosecution of Ramsaran, the People failed to establish that it was “critical or necessary.” There is a multitude of other evidence against Ramsaran, including the statements that he made during his telephone calls to 911, his girlfriend and to the police, as well as DNA evidence of the blood found on his clothes and the victim’s van. Contrary to the People’s contentions, Ramsaran’s statements during the interview do not contradict any of his other statements, but rather corroborate other available evidence against him … . Matter of Canning v Revoir, 2023 NY Slip Op 04623, Third Dept 9-14-23

Practice Point: This is a rare example of the granting of a writ of prohibition preventing a judge from enforcing a subpoena. The subpoena sought the testimony of a reporter who had interviewed a murder suspect. The People did not meet the criteria of the New York Shield Law which protects reporters from subpoenas when the reporter’s testimony is not “critical or necessary” to the People’s case.

 

You might also like
CORRECTION OFFICER’S FALL DOWN A STAIRWAY WAS PROXIMATELY CAUSED BY THE ACT OF AN INMATE, THE RESULTING DISABILITY IS THEREFORE COMPENSABLE (THIRD DEPT).
PETITIONER OPERATED HIS BARBER SHOP OUT OF HIS HOME IN MARCH 2020 AFTER THE GOVERNOR ORDERED BARBER SHOPS CLOSED DUE TO COVID-19; REVOCATION OF PETITIONER’S BARBER LICENSES WAS DEEMED TOO SEVERE A PENALTY; THERE WAS A DISSENT (THIRD DEPT). ​
The Third Dept Upheld the Statutory Amendment Cutting Off Reimbursement of Medicaid Overburden Expenses Incurred Prior to 2006—However the Court Imposed a Six-Month Grace Period Before the Amendment Kicks In [The Fourth Dept Dealt with the Same Question in a Decision Dated 11-14-14—Although the Fourth Dept Also Upheld the Amendment, It Did Not Impose a Grace Period and Did Not Use the Same Reasoning]
ALTHOUGH THE PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH DISCOVERY ORDERS WAS WILLFUL AND CONTUMACIOUS, PRECLUSION OF EXPERT EVIDENCE IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE WAS TOO SEVERE A SANCTION; PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY FINED $5000 (THIRD DEPT).
NURSE WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF COMPANY WHICH DOES HEALTH SCREENING OF EMPLOYEES OF CORPORATE CLIENTS.
AFTER THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION (DEC) AND THE PERMIT APPLICANT CAME TO AN AGREEMENT, A REQUEST BY AFFECTED PROPERTY OWNERS FOR FURTHER ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES RELATING TO THE APPROVAL OF TWO DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS IN THE CATSKILLS WAS PROPERLY DENIED BY THE DEC COMMISSIONER (THIRD DEPT).
THE ICY CONDITION WAS CREATED BY “POCKETS OF FREEZING RAIN” FROM MIDNIGHT TO 3:45 AM; THERE WAS NO “STORM;” THE “STORM-IN-PROGRESS” DOCTRINE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN APPLIED IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (THIRD DEPT).
FATHER PAID CHILD SUPPORT PRIOR TO SENTENCING FOR WILLFUL FAILURE TO PAY, FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ISSUED THE ORDER OF COMMITMENT.

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

A DEFAULTING PARTY ADMITS ALL THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE COMPLAINT; THEREFORE LIABILITY... IN ORDERING A NEW HEARING ON MOTHER’S PETITION TO RELOCATE, THE FIRST...