You are here: / Fourth Department

Tag Archive for: Fourth Department

DESCRIPTION OF CLOTHES WORN BY THE SUSPECT DID NOT MATCH THE CLOTHES WORN BY THE MAN OBSERVED BY THE POLICE, THE STOP OF THE CAR THE MAN GOT INTO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED BY REASONABLE SUSPICION OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY, SEIZED WEAPONS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED.

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the stop of defendant’s car was not supported by reasonable suspicion and the weapons seized should have been suppressed. The officer stopped the car after he saw an Hispanic man with tattoos on his neck get into the car. The shooting suspect the police were looking for at the time of the stop was an Hispanic man with tattoos on his neck. However, the clothing worn by the man who got into the car did not come close to matching the clothes the shooting suspect was said to be wearing. It turned out that the shooting suspect was also in the stopped car:

​

… [T]he inconsistencies between the suspect’s clothing as described by the complainant and the clothing worn by the man who walked past the officer on North Goodman Street rendered the officer’s suspicion that the man was the suspect less than reasonable… . Contrary to the People’s contention, moreover, we conclude that the man’s conduct in staring straight ahead as he walked among the police cars was “innocuous and readily susceptible of an innocent interpretation” and, as such, did not generate a reasonable suspicion of criminality … .

Given that the stop of defendant’s vehicle was not supported by a reasonable suspicion of criminality, the officer’s observation of the actual suspect in the front seat with a weapon in his waistband was “the unattenuated by-product of the [illegal] stop” …  and, inasmuch as the disposal of the weapons during the ensuing chase was precipitated by that illegality, the weapons should have been suppressed … . In addition, because our determination results in the suppression of all evidence supporting the crimes charged, the indictment must be dismissed … . People v Lopez, 2017 NY Slip Op 03327, 4th Dept 4-28-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (DESCRIPTION OF CLOTHES WORN BY THE SUSPECT DID NOT MATCH THE CLOTHES WORN BY THE MAN OBSERVED BY THE POLICE, THE STOP OF THE CAR THE MAN GOT INTO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED BY REASONABLE SUSPICION OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY, SEIZED WEAPONS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED)/STREET STOPS  (DESCRIPTION OF CLOTHES WORN BY THE SUSPECT DID NOT MATCH THE CLOTHES WORN BY THE MAN OBSERVED BY THE POLICE, THE STOP OF THE CAR THE MAN GOT INTO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED BY REASONABLE SUSPICION OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY, SEIZED WEAPONS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED/SUPPRESS, MOTION TO (DESCRIPTION OF CLOTHES WORN BY THE SUSPECT DID NOT MATCH THE CLOTHES WORN BY THE MAN OBSERVED BY THE POLICE, THE STOP OF THE CAR THE MAN GOT INTO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED BY REASONABLE SUSPICION OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY, SEIZED WEAPONS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED)

, ,

THE TRIAL JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE ACCEDED TO DEFENDANT’S REQUEST THAT THE JURY NOT BE INSTRUCTED ON A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE, AND, BASED UPON DEFENDANT’S BEHAVIOR, THE TRIAL JUDGE SHOULD HAVE ORDERED A COMPETENCY EXAMINATION.

The Fourth Department reversed defendant’s conviction for two reasons: (1) the trial judge acceded to defendant’s request that the jury not be instructed on a lesser included offense, and (2) the trial judge, in light of defendant’s behavior during the trial, should have ordered a competency examination:

​

We agree with defendant, however, that he was denied his right to counsel when County Court permitted him, rather than defense counsel, to decide whether to request a jury charge on a lesser included offense. “It is well established that a defendant, having accepted the assistance of counsel, retains authority only over certain fundamental decisions regarding the case’ such as whether to plead guilty, waive a jury trial, testify in his or her own behalf or take an appeal’ ” … . “[D]efense counsel has ultimate decision-making authority over matters of strategy and trial tactics, such as whether to seek a jury charge on a lesser included offense” … . Here, defense counsel requested a charge on the lesser included offense of criminal trespass. After defendant stated that he did not want such a charge, the court noted that defendant’s consent was not required. Nevertheless, defense counsel stated that he was not requesting the charge based on defendant’s decision not to follow his advice. Although defense counsel unequivocally and repeatedly stated that the charge was in defendant’s best interest, and indicated that defendant was declining the charge against defense counsel’s advice, the court abided defendant’s choice and thus “denied [defendant] the expert judgment of counsel to which the Sixth Amendment entitles him” … . …

​

Although a defendant is presumed to be competent … , whenever a court has a ” reasonable ground for believing that a defendant is in such state of idiocy, imbecility or insanity that he is incapable of understanding the charge, indictment or proceedings or of making his defense, it is the duty of the court to direct him to be examined in these respects’ ” … . Here, in light of the nature and frequency of defendant’s outbursts, and the People’s expressed concern about defendant’s competency prior to trial, we conclude that the court abused its discretion in failing to insure that defendant was competent to stand trial … . People v Minckler, 2017 NY Slip Op 03311, 4th Dept 4-28-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (THE TRIAL JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE ACCEDED TO DEFENDANT’S REQUEST THAT THE JURY NOT BE INSTRUCTED ON A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE AND, BASED UPON DEFENDANT’S BEHAVIOR, THE TRIAL JUDGE SHOULD HAVE ORDERED A COMPETENCY EXAMINATION)/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, THE TRIAL JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE ACCEDED TO DEFENDANT’S REQUEST THAT THE JURY NOT BE INSTRUCTED ON A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE AND, BASED UPON DEFENDANT’S BEHAVIOR, THE TRIAL JUDGE SHOULD HAVE ORDERED A COMPETENCY EXAMINATION)/LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE (THE TRIAL JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE ACCEDED TO DEFENDANT’S REQUEST THAT THE JURY NOT BE INSTRUCTED ON A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE AND, BASED UPON DEFENDANT’S BEHAVIOR, THE TRIAL JUDGE SHOULD HAVE ORDERED A COMPETENCY EXAMINATION)/JURY INSTRUCTIONS (CRIMINAL LAW, LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE, THE TRIAL JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE ACCEDED TO DEFENDANT’S REQUEST THAT THE JURY NOT BE INSTRUCTED ON A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE AND, BASED UPON DEFENDANT’S BEHAVIOR, THE TRIAL JUDGE SHOULD HAVE ORDERED A COMPETENCY EXAMINATION)/RIGHT TO COUNSEL (CRIMINAL LAW, THE TRIAL JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE ACCEDED TO DEFENDANT’S REQUEST THAT THE JURY NOT BE INSTRUCTED ON A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE AND, BASED UPON DEFENDANT’S BEHAVIOR, THE TRIAL JUDGE SHOULD HAVE ORDERED A COMPETENCY EXAMINATION)/COMPETENCY EXAMINATION (CRIMINAL LAW, THE TRIAL JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE ACCEDED TO DEFENDANT’S REQUEST THAT THE JURY NOT BE INSTRUCTED ON A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE AND, BASED UPON DEFENDANT’S BEHAVIOR, THE TRIAL JUDGE SHOULD HAVE ORDERED A COMPETENCY EXAMINATION)

JUDGE DID NOT GIVE A COMPLETE JURY INSTRUCTION ON THE ELEMENTS OF BURGLARY, NEW TRIAL ORDERED.

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the burglary jury instruction was flawed. Defendant allowed her brother into the home where defendant resided and her brother assaulted a resident of the home in the resident’s bedroom. The jury instruction did not make clear the definitions of a building or unit as those terms are used in the burglary statute:

​

A person is guilty of burglary in the first degree, in pertinent part, when he or she “knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in a dwelling with intent to commit a crime therein” (Penal Law § 140.30 [2]). ” Dwelling’ means a building which is usually occupied by a person lodging therein at night” (§ 140.00 [3]), and “the definition of building’ includes the following: Where a building consists of two or more units separately secured or occupied, each unit shall be deemed both a separate building in itself and a part of the main building’ ” … .

Here, the court instructed the jurors that a “dwelling is a building which is usually occupied by a person lodging therein at night. A bedroom in a home, where there is more than one tenant, may be considered independent of the rest of the house and may be considered a separate dwelling within a building.” The court, however, failed to include the part of the definition of building that would require the jury to determine whether the house at issue consisted of “two or more units” and whether the bedroom at issue was a unit that was “separately secured or occupied” (Penal Law § 140.00 [2]). Consequently, “given the omission of the definition of [ unit’] and/or [ separately secured or occupied,’] the instruction did not adequately convey the meaning of [ building’] to the jury and instead created a great likelihood of confusion such that the degree of precision required for a jury charge was not met” … . People v Pritchard, 2017 NY Slip Op 03287, 4th Dept 4-28-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (JUDGE DID NOT GIVE A COMPLETE JURY INSTRUCTION ON THE ELEMENTS OF BURGLARY, NEW TRIAL ORDERED)/BURGLARY (JUDGE DID NOT GIVE A COMPLETE JURY INSTRUCTION ON THE ELEMENTS OF BURGLARY, NEW TRIAL ORDERED)

DEFENDANT’S REFUSAL TO TURN AROUND AND HIS HANDS POSITIONED AT HIS WAISTBAND JUSTIFIED AN OFFICER’S DRAWING HIS WEAPON AND POLICE PURSUIT.

The Fourth Department determined defendant’s refusal to turn around upon request and his hands positioned at his waistband justified a police officer’s drawing his weapon and a pursuit of the defendant when her ran. Suppression of the weapon discarded by the defendant was properly denied:

​

… [W]e conclude that defendant’s positioning and his refusal to comply with the officer’s request to return to the vehicle, while not alone indicative of criminal behavior, could be “considered in conjunction with other attendant circumstances” to establish the requisite reasonable suspicion of criminal activity … . In our view, once defendant refused the officer’s request to return to the vehicle and turned toward the officers, the officers could “reasonably suspect[] that defendant was armed and posed a threat to their safety because his actions were directed to the area of his waistband, which was concealed from their view”,,, . The officer who drew his weapon was justified in doing so out of a concern for his own safety … . We thus conclude that defendant’s flight, “in conjunction with the attendant circumstances, gave rise to the requisite reasonable suspicion justifying police pursuit” … . People v Walker, 2017 NY Slip Op 03317, 4th Dept 4-28-17

CRIMINAL LAW (DEFENDANT’S REFUSAL TO TURN AROUND AND HIS HANDS POSITIONED AT HIS WAISTBAND JUSTIFIED AN OFFICER’S DRAWING HIS WEAPON AND POLICE PURSUIT)/STREET STOPS (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT’S REFUSAL TO TURN AROUND AND HIS HANDS POSITIONED AT HIS WAISTBAND JUSTIFIED AN OFFICER’S DRAWING HIS WEAPON AND POLICE PURSUIT)/SUPPRESS, MOTION TO  (DEFENDANT’S REFUSAL TO TURN AROUND AND HIS HANDS POSITIONED AT HIS WAISTBAND JUSTIFIED AN OFFICER’S DRAWING HIS WEAPON AND POLICE PURSUIT)

DEFENDANT WALKED BY POLICE OFFICER HOLDING HIS WAISTBAND, OFFICER WAS JUSTIFIED IN REQUESTING DEFENDANT TO SHOW HIM HIS HANDS REVEALING A GUN, SUPPRESSION PROPERLY DENIED.

The Fourth Department, over a dissent, determined the arresting officer had a founded suspicion of criminal activity justifying his request that defendant show him his hands. Defendant had walked by the officer holding his waistband. When the defendant complied with the officer’s request and raised his hands the officer saw a gun:

​

… [W]e conclude that the location of this encounter in a high-crime area, the officer’s training and his experience in investigating weapons possession crimes at this location, together with defendant’s grabbing of his waistband with his hand concealed under his shirt, provided the requisite founded suspicion for the officer to command defendant to show his hands. Under the totality of the circumstances, we conclude that it is of no consequence that the officer did not observe a gun before commanding defendant to show his hands. Indeed, defendant’s hand was concealed under his shirt while simultaneously grabbing his waistband. The Court of Appeals has noted that “a handgun is often carried in the waistband” … , and that it would be “absurd to suggest that a police officer has to await the glint of steel before he can act to preserve his safety” … .

We recognize that a founded suspicion may not rest upon innocuous behavior that is susceptible of an innocent as well as a culpable interpretation … . Viewed in isolation by an untrained observer, defendant’s actions might not appear to be suspicious but, “when viewed collectively and in the light of the officer’s expertise,” we conclude that the officer had a founded suspicion of criminal activity warranting a level two inquiry … . People v Simmons, 2017 NY Slip Op 03280, 4th Dept 4-28-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (DEFENDANT WALKED BY POLICE OFFICER HOLDING HIS WAISTBAND, OFFICER WAS JUSTIFIED IN REQUESTING DEFENDANT TO SHOW HIM HIS HANDS REVEALING A GUN, SUPPRESSION PROPERLY DENIED)/STREET STOPS (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT WALKED BY POLICE OFFICER HOLDING HIS WAISTBAND, OFFICER WAS JUSTIFIED IN REQUESTING DEFENDANT TO SHOW HIM HIS HANDS REVEALING A GUN, SUPPRESSION PROPERLY DENIED)/SUPPRESS, MOTION TO  (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT WALKED BY POLICE OFFICER HOLDING HIS WAISTBAND, OFFICER WAS JUSTIFIED IN REQUESTING DEFENDANT TO SHOW HIM HIS HANDS REVEALING A GUN, SUPPRESSION PROPERLY DENIED)

, ,

RACE TRACK WAIVER OF LIABILITY INVALID, PRIMARY ASSUMPTION OF RISK NOT APPLICABLE, IMPLIED ASSUMPTION OF RISK APPLICABLE, LAW OF THE CASE DID NOT PRECLUDE DIRECTED VERDICT AFTER DENIAL OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE SAME ISSUES.

The Fourth Department, in a substantive decision dealing with several liability and damages issues not summarized here, determined the trial court properly granted plaintiff’s motion for a directed verdict finding the liability waiver invalid and the doctrine of primary assumption of risk inapplicable. The Fourth Department concluded the doctrine of implied assumption of risk was applicable, however. The Fourth Department further held that the law of the case doctrine did not preclude the court from directing a verdict in plaintiff’s favor after denying plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the same issues. Plaintiff’s son was in an auto race at defendant race track. Plaintiff was in the pit area when defendant driver (Holland) backed his car into plaintiff:

Contrary to defendants’ contention, the court properly granted plaintiff’s motion for a directed verdict establishing that the liability waiver was invalid and that the action was not barred by the doctrine of primary assumption of the risk, inasmuch as there was “no rational process” by which the jury could have found in favor of defendants on those issues … . With respect to the waiver, General Obligations Law § 5-326 voids any such agreement entered into in connection with, as relevant here, the payment of a fee by a “user” to enter a place of recreation. Plaintiff testified at trial that he was a mere spectator on the night of the accident, thereby establishing that he was a user entitled to the benefit of section 5-326 … , and there was no evidence from which the jury could have rationally found that plaintiff was a participant in the event whose attendance was “meant to further the speedway venture” … . …

With respect to the doctrine of primary assumption of the risk, we conclude that the risk that a pedestrian will be struck by a driver backing up in the pit area, well before the driver is participating in a race, is not inherent in the activity of automobile racing … , and thus that the doctrine is inapplicable to this case … .

We reject defendants’ further contention that the doctrine of law of the case precluded the court from directing a verdict in plaintiff’s favor after it had denied prior motions by plaintiff directed at the issues of waiver and primary assumption of the risk, including a motion for partial summary judgment. ” A denial of a motion for summary judgment is not necessarily . . . the law of the case that there is an issue of fact in the case that will be established at the trial’ “… . …

We further agree with defendants that a charge on implied assumption of the risk should have been given because there was evidence that plaintiff “disregard[ed] a known risk by voluntarily being in a dangerous area” … . Inasmuch as the jury was properly instructed on comparative negligence and apportioned 20% of the liability for the accident to plaintiff, however, we conclude that this error did not prejudice a substantial right of defendants and thus does not warrant reversal … . Knight v Holland, 2017 NY Slip Op 02525, 4th Dept 3-31-17

 

NO SHOWING RUG OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF TRIPPED WAS NOT FLUSH TO THE FLOOR, HEIGHT DIFFERENTIAL WAS TRIVIAL, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The Fourth Department, over a dissent, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s slip and fall complaint should have been dismissed. Plaintiff alleged he tripped on the corner of a rug. The Fourth Department found, as a matter of law, the rug was in place and plaintiff’s foot went under it. The height of the rug was a trivial, nonactionable defect:

… [W]e conclude that defendant established as a matter of law that the alleged defect created by the placement of a rug in the vestibule and any apparent height differential between the rug and the floor “is too trivial to be actionable” … . “[T]he test established by the case law in New York is not whether a defect is capable of catching a pedestrian’s shoe. Instead, the relevant questions are whether the defect was difficult for a pedestrian to see or to identify as a hazard or difficult to pass over safely on foot in light of the surrounding circumstances” … . Defendant’s submissions established that the accident occurred between approximately 10:00 and 10:30 a.m., when it was “bright enough to see.” Plaintiff was entering defendant’s restaurant behind his son, and there were no other customers in the vicinity. The photograph submitted by defendant depicting the rug does not reveal any defect or irregularity with the rug, and the videotape of the incident shows that the area where plaintiff fell was unobstructed, no other patrons had an issue traversing through the doors and over the rug, and there was no appreciable ripple or other height differential present in the rug to cause a tripping hazard. Thus, after examining the photograph and the video depicting the placement of the rug in the vestibule, and ” in view of the time, place, and circumstances of plaintiff’s injury,’ ” we conclude that defendant established as a matter of law that any defect in the rug was too trivial to be actionable … . Langgood v Carrols, LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 02528, 4th Dept 3-31-17

 

, ,

DEFENSE COUNSEL NOT INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO INTRODUCE TAPED THIRD-PARTY CONFESSION, THE RELIABILITY PRONG OF THE STATEMENT AGAINST PENAL INTEREST CRITERIA WAS VERY WEAK.

The Fourth Department determined the defendant’s motion to vacate the judgment of conviction on ineffective assistance grounds was properly denied. The basis of the ineffective assistance claim was his attorney’s failure to put in evidence a third party’s taped confession to the crime (to which defendant had pled guilty). The Fourth Department explained the tape recording did not meet the criteria for a statement against penal interest:

“The declaration against penal interest exception to the hearsay rule recognizes the general reliability of such statements . . . because normally people do not make statements damaging to themselves unless they are true’ ” … . “The exception has four components: (1) the declarant must be unavailable to testify by reason of death, absence from the jurisdiction or refusal to testify on constitutional grounds; (2) the declarant must be aware at the time the statement is made that it is contrary to penal interest; (3) the declarant must have competent knowledge of the underlying facts; and (4) there must be sufficient proof independent of the utterance to assure its reliability … . “The fourth factor is the most important’ aspect of the exception” … , and “[t]he crucial inquiry focuses on the intrinsic trustworthiness of the statement as confirmed by competent evidence independent of the declaration itself” … . Where, as here, the declaration exculpates the defendant, “[s]upportive evidence is sufficient if it establishes a reasonable possibility that the [declaration] might be true” … . …

In support of her conclusion that the confession was inadmissible, trial counsel testified that all she had was a voice on a tape recording and, based on her discussions with the prior attorney, “there was some question as to whether [the third party] was even voluntarily in [the prior attorney’s] office” when he made the confession. Defendant testified that the third party was a friend of one of his sisters, and that the third party and defendant’s sister smoked crack cocaine together. … [T]he prior attorney made arrangements for the third party to be appointed counsel, but the third party disappeared shortly thereafter and, despite diligent efforts, including maintaining the investigator’s search, trial counsel was unable to locate him even up through defendant’s trial. People v Conway, 2017 NY Slip Op 02530, 4th Dept 3-31-17

 

,

TRIAL JUDGE’S GRANT OF A TRIAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL IN THIS MURDER CASE WAS ERROR, HOWEVER THERE IS NO STATUTORY AUTHORITY FOR THE PEOPLE’S APPEAL.

The Fourth Department determined the People did not have statutory authority to appeal the grant of a trial order of dismissal after a mistrial had been declared because the jury could not reach a verdict. The Fourth Department explicitly stated that it had reviewed the evidence and found it legally sufficient to support the charge (murder). The trial order of dismissal, then, should not have been granted. But there was no mechanism for the People to appeal the error:

“It is fundamental that in the absence of a statute expressly authorizing a criminal appeal, there is no right to appeal” … . CPL 450.20, the “exclusive route for a People’s appeal” … , does not authorize this appeal. Contrary to the People’s contention, CPL 450.20 (2) does not provide the statutory basis for this appeal, inasmuch as the order they seek to appeal did not set aside a guilty verdict and dismiss the indictment pursuant to CPL 290.10 (1) (b). Rather, there was no guilty verdict to set aside, and the order was issued pursuant to CPL 290.10 (1) (a). Thus, the order is not appealable … . We may not “create a right to appeal out of thin air” in order to address the merits “without trespassing on the Legislature’s domain and undermining the structure of article 450 of the CPL—the definite and particular enumeration of all appealable orders” … . Were we able to review the merits, however, we would agree with the People that the court erred in dismissing the indictment. A “review [of] the legal sufficiency of the evidence as defined by CPL 70.10 (1), [while] accepting the competent evidence as true, in the light most favorable to the People,” compels the conclusion that the evidence was legally sufficient to support the charge … . People v Tan, 2017 NY Slip Op 02541, 4th Dept 3-31-17

 

RECORDS OF PLAINTIFF’S STAY AT A SHELTER FOR VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ARE DISCOVERABLE IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION AS DEEMED APPROPRIATE BY THE TRIAL COURT UPON REVIEW, DEFENDANTS ENTITLED TO PRIVILEGE LOG.

The Fourth Department determined the records of plaintiff’s stay at a shelter for domestic violence victims were not protected by privilege. The defendants in this medical malpractice action sought the records and the plaintiff’s privilege log. The medical malpractice action stemmed from treatment of injuries from an assault. The Fourth Department held that the defendants were entitled to the privilege log, which plaintiff the trial court had ordered submitted only to the court. After the defendants review the log the trial court should hear argument from the defendants concerning the discoverability of any identified documents:

… [T]he shelter records are not protected by any privilege, and they are thus subject to disclosure to the extent that they are material and necessary to the defense of the action … . Even assuming, arguendo, that the records were prepared by licensed social workers, which is not evident from the records themselves, we conclude that plaintiff waived any privilege afforded by CPLR 4508 by affirmatively placing her medical and psychological condition in controversy through the broad allegations of injury in her bills of particulars … . Inasmuch as defendants are not seeking disclosure of the street address of the shelter, we reject plaintiff’s contention that Social Services Law § 459-h precludes disclosure of the records. Furthermore, 18 NYCRR 452.10 (a), which renders confidential certain information “relating to the operation of residential programs for victims of domestic violence and to the residents of such programs,” does not preclude disclosure of the records because that regulation allows for access to such information “as permitted by an order of a court of competent jurisdiction” … . That regulation does not preclude a court from ordering disclosure of shelter records that are material and necessary to the defense of an action … .

… [W]e conclude that defendants are not entitled to ” unfettered disclosure’ ” of plaintiff’s potentially sensitive shelter records … . Indeed, we note that a court is “entitled to consider . . . the personal nature of the information sought” in making a disclosure order … . We agree with defendants, however, that the court should have directed plaintiff to provide a copy of her privilege log to them rather than directing her to provide it only to the court as an aid for its in camera review of the records. Abraha v Adams, 2017 NY Slip Op 02526, 4th Dept 3-31-17

 

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