Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: Application of LAW OFFICES OF PAUL A. LANGE, etc., John DOE IV, etc., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ROMAN CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF DALLAS, et al, Defendants, John Cardinal O'Connor, Non-Party Movant-Respondent.
IN RE: Application of LAW OFFICES OF PAUL A. LANGE, etc., John DOE I, etc., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ROMAN CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF DALLAS, et al, Defendants, John Cardinal O'Connor, Non-Party Movant-Respondent.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (David Saxe, J.), entered October 9, 1996, which granted movant John Cardinal O'Connor's motions for protective orders and to quash non-party subpoenas, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
The non-party subpoenas issued pursuant to CPLR 3102(e) and served on John Cardinal O'Connor relate to two consolidated actions brought in Texas against the Roman Catholic Church and various other individuals and organizations in its hierarchy, arising out of allegations of sexual abuse committed by a priest serving as a military chaplain.
The court (170 Misc.2d 43, 648 N.Y.S.2d 265 ) properly exercised its discretion in granting Cardinal O'Connor's motions where he submitted sworn evidence that although at the relevant times he had been an official of the Military Vicariate, he did not know the priest in question and lacked the type of information sought by plaintiffs, and that the examination sought was improper and constituted harassment (see, Matter of Ayliffe & Cos., 166 A.D.2d 223, 224, 564 N.Y.S.2d 297). Contrary to plaintiffs' contention, the court correctly applied the Ayliffe test and found that plaintiffs actually sought the Cardinal's testimony because he had been an official with the Military Vicariate. Since the Military Vicariate already provided representatives who possessed adequate information, the court properly found that the issuance of protective orders was justified in order to prevent unnecessary harassment.
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: December 16, 1997
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)