Opinion
Submitted May 3, 1999
September 20, 1999
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 on-dissemination order and denied that branch of her cross motion which was for leave to depose a on-party witness.
Solovay Edlin Eiseman, New York, N.Y. (Norman Solovay of counsel), for appellant.
Sheresky Aronson Mayefsky, LLP, New York, N.Y. (David Aronson and Heidi Harris of counsel), for respondent.
LAWRENCE J. BRACKEN, J.P., CORNELIUS J. O'BRIEN, GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, LEO F. McGINITY, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is modified by deleting the provision thereof granting the motion for a on-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 A.D.2d 287, 292; Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333). The defendant's moving papers did not satisfy this standard.
The appellant's remaining contentions are without merit.
DECISION ORDER ON MOTION
Separate motions by the respondent on an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered January 20, 1999, inter alia, (1) to dismiss the appeal as academic, and (2) to strike the appellant's reply brief on the ground that it refers to documents which are dehors the record. Cross motion by the appellant, in effect, inter alia, for leave to enlarge the record on the appeal to include the documents referred to in her reply brief. By decisions and orders on motion of this court dated April 22, 1999, and April 28, 1999, respectively, the motions and cross motion were held in abeyance and referred to the panel of Justices hearing the appeal for determination.
Upon the papers filed in support of the motions and cross motion, the papers filed in opposition thereto, and upon the submission of the appeal, it is
ORDERED that the motion to dismiss the appeal as academic is denied; and it is further,
ORDERED that the motion to strike the reply brief is granted, and the reply brief is deemed stricken and has not been considered on the appeal; and it is further,
ORDERED that the cross motion is denied.
BRACKEN. J.P., O'BRIEN, KRAUSMAN, and McGINITY, JJ., concur.