Marie E. v. 599 West Associates

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Marie E. v. 599 West Associates

270 A.D.2d 90, 704 N.Y.S.2d 468, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2824

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMarch 14, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 270 A.D.2d 90 (Marie E. v. 599 West Associates) 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

Marie E. v. 599 West Associates, 270 A.D.2d 90, 704 N.Y.S.2d 468, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2824 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Jerry Crispino, J.), entered on or about August 31, 1999, which, in an action for personal injuries sustained as a result of allegedly inadequate building security, insofar as appealed from as limited by defendant’s brief, directs defendant to seek leave of court prior to taking any action that would identify plaintiff as the victim of the sexual assault alleged in the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court appropriately balanced defendant’s right to investigate and defend a claim involving a sexual assault in its building and plaintiffs interest in not being identified as the victim of a sexual assault (CPLR 3103 [a]). In view of plaintiffs acknowledgment in her brief that “[t]he order only requires court leave in the circumstance where defendant intends to affirmatively disclose that the plaintiff was the victim of a sexual assault”, we affirm the order. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Mazzarelli, Ellerin, Lerner and Friedman, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Jerry Crispino, J.), entered on or about August 31, 1999, which, in an action for personal injuries sustained as a result of allegedly inadequate building security, insofar as appealed from as limited by defendant’s brief, directs defendant to seek leave of court prior to taking any action that would identify plaintiff as the victim of the sexual assault alleged in the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court appropriately balanced defendant’s right to investigate and defend a claim involving a sexual assault in its building and plaintiffs interest in not being identified as the victim of a sexual assault (CPLR 3103 [a]). In view of plaintiffs acknowledgment in her brief that “[t]he order only requires court leave in the circumstance where defendant intends to affirmatively disclose that the plaintiff was the victim of a sexual assault”, we affirm the order. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Mazzarelli, Ellerin, Lerner and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

270 A.D.2d 90, 704 N.Y.S.2d 468, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2824, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marie-e-v-599-west-associates-nyappdiv-2000.