Lowinger v. Lowinger

264 A.D.2d 763, 695 N.Y.S.2d 127, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9260
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedSeptember 20, 1999
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 264 A.D.2d 763 (Lowinger v. Lowinger) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Lowinger v. Lowinger, 264 A.D.2d 763, 695 N.Y.S.2d 127, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9260 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Opinion

In a matrimonial action, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Nicolai, J.), entered January 20, 1999, as granted the defendant’s motion for a non-dissemination order and denied that branch of her cross motion which was for leave to depose a non-party witness.

Ordered that the order is modified by deleting the provision thereof granting the motion for a non-dissemination order and substituting therefor a provision denying that motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The court granted the defendant’s motion for a non-dissemination order, finding that “[t]here are children, albeit not infants, who may well be affected by the public airing of the issues in this litigation”. The court directed that the parties and their attorneys be “prohibited from disseminating information regarding this matrimonial action to the news media”.

The relief was not warranted under the circumstances presented. Orders restraining extrajudicial comments by the parties or their attorneys are not generally permitted unless there is a reasonable likelihood of the existence of serious threat to the right to a fair trial (see, Matter of National Broadcasting Co. v Cooperman, 116 AD2d 287, 292; Sheppard v Maxwell, 384 US 333). The defendant’s moving papers did not satisfy this standard.

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Krausman and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Nunez-Unda v. Adrien
2024 NY Slip Op 33933(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2024)
Ash v. Board of Managers of the 155 Condominium
44 A.D.3d 324 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Kenner v. Kenner
13 A.D.3d 52 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
264 A.D.2d 763, 695 N.Y.S.2d 127, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9260, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lowinger-v-lowinger-nyappdiv-1999.