Burnette v Anson

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Burnette v Anson 2020 NY Slip Op 35242(U) January 31, 2020 Supreme Court, Dutchess County Docket Number: Index No. 52818/2016 Judge: Christi J. Acker Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. FILED: DUTCHESS COUNTY CLERK 02/03/2020 02:13 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 372 INDEX NO. 2016-52818 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/03/2020 To commence commence the the 30-day 30-day statutory time statutory time period period for appeals appeals as of (CPLR 5513[a]), 5513[a]), you of right right (CPLR are advised advised to serve serve a copy of this this copy of order, order, with with notice notice of of entry, entry, upon all parties. parties. SUPREME COURT COURT OF OF THE THE STATE STATE OF OF NEW SUPREME NEW YORK YORK COUNTY OF OF DUTCHESS COUNTY DUTCHESS -------------------------------------------------------------x -------------------------------------------------------------J< MARY BURNETTE, MARYBURNE~TE, Plaintiff, Plaintiff, DECISION AND ORDER ORDER DECISION AND -against-against- IndeJ<No.: 528)8/2016 Index No.: 528J8/2016 LAURA ANSON ANSON and and GEORGE GEORGE CONANT, CONANT, LAURA Defendants. Defendants. -------------------------------------------------------------x -------------------------------------------------------------J< ACKER, J.S.c. ACKER, J.S.C. The following following papers, papers, numbered were read Anson's read on Defendant Defendant Laura Laura Anson's The numbered I_l to 25, were ("Defendant Anson") motion for the (I) an Order Order granting of this ("Defendant Anson") motion the following following relief: relief: (1) granting consolidation consolidation of action along along with Anson' s Ulster County County Action; Order pursuant CPLR action with Defendant Defendant Anson's.Ulster Action; (2) an Order pursuant to CPLR g3 I 03 prohibiting disseminating the discovery discovery materials from posting such §3103 prohibiting Plaintiff Plaintiff from disseminating materials or from posting such materials internet or on other other social social media; Order sanctioning sanctioning Plaintiffs Plaintiffs materials on the internet media; and (3) an Order counsel frivolous conduct: conduct: counsel for frivolous Notice of Motion-Affirmation Motion-Affirmation of of Russell Russell A. Schindler, Schindler, Esq.-EJ<hibits Notice of Esq.-Exhibits A-I.. A-I.. ................. 1I-I - I lI Affirmation Opposition of of Thomas Thomas F. Vasti, Vasti, III, Esq.-Exhibits Esq.-EJ<hibits 1-13 ...................... 12-25 Affirmation in Opposition Given that tenth motion instant matter, familiarity with with the history Given that this is the tenth motion made made in the instant matter, familiarity history of this this action assumed for purposes of this this Decision Decision and Order. Court notes of action is assumed purposes of Order. Initially, Initially, the Court notes that the parties have consented consented to the consolidation consolidation of of this this matter matter of of laura Laura Anson parties have matter with the matter Anson v. v. .Mary Burnelte, Supreme Court, Court, IndeJ<No. 18-3657. By Order Order of Consolidation ·Mary Burnette, Ulster Ulster County County Supreme Index No. 18-3657. of Consolidation [* 1] 1 of 4 INDEX NO. 2016-52818 FILED: DUTCHESS COUNTY CLERK 02/03/2020 02:13 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 372 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/03/2020 dated dated August August 20, 2019, 20]9, the Court Court ordered ordered that that the Ulster Ulster County County action action was consolidated consolidated with with action, which which would same caption. ordered that further ordered that Defendant Defendant the instant instant action, would retain retain the same caption. It was further Anson's cause of of action action for malicious deemed a counterclaim counterclaim against malicious prosecution prosecution would would be deemed against Anson's cause Plaintiff ("Plaintiff'). As such, such, Defendant Anson's motion Plaintiff Mary Mary Burnette Burnette ("Plaintiff'). Defendant Anson's motion for consolidation consolidation is denied as moot. denied moot. requested by Defendant Defendant Anson Anson is denied. After the motion motion was The remainder remainder of of relief relief requested denied. After briefed issuing this Decision Order, the Court Court engaged engaged in numerous conferences briefed and prior prior to issuing Decision and Order, numerous conferences with parties counsel seeking seeking a mutual agreement that parties and counsel mutual agreement that all parties parties would would refrain refrain from publicly publicly discussing this social media discussing this case on social media platforms, platforms, websites websites and public public access access television. television. Although Although there appeared appeared to be progress such an agreement, agreement, it was ultimately determined that there progress toward toward such ultimately determined that the Court should should issue issue a decision decision on Defendant Court Defendant Anson's Anson's request request for a protective protective order. order. Court previously entertained a similar similar request The Court previously entertained request for relief relief from Plaintiff Plaintiff that that sought, sought, infer alia, alia, an injunction injunction restraining George Conant Conant ("Defendant ("Defendant Conant") inter restraining Defendant Defendant George Conant") from making offensive and defamatory defamatory comments comments about about Plaintiff. Order dated making offensive Plaintiff. By Decision Decision and Order dated December ("December 20, 2018 Order"), Plaintiffs December 20, 2018 2018 ("December 2018 Order"), Plaintiffs request request for this this relief relief was denied denied because necessary for restraint of speech. speech. See. e.g., e.g., Dennis Dennis v because she had not not met the the high high burden burden necessary restraint of Napoli, 2015 2015 WL 4885340, 2015]. Napoli, 4885340, *10 * 10 [Supreme [Supreme Court, Court, NY County County 2015]. In the instant instant motion, motion, Defendant Defendant Anson Anson moves moves for the requested requested relief relief pursuant pursuant to CPLR CPLR s3103(a). That That section section provides "[t]he court court may at any time initiative, or on §3103(a). provides that that "[t]he time on its own own initiative, motion of any party 'of any person about whom sought, make party or ·of person from whom whom or about whom discovery discovery is sought, make a motion of protective order regulating the use of protective order denying, denying, limiting, limiting, conditioning conditioning or regulating of any disclosure disclosure device device [emphasis added]." added]." [emphasis 'Notably, Defendant seeking a protective order regarding ·Notably, Defendant Anson Anson is not not seeking protective order regarding the 2 [* 2] 2 of 4 FILED: DUTCHESS COUNTY CLERK 02/03/2020 02:13 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 372 ' INDEX NO. 2016-52818 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/03/2020 use of of any disclosure disclosure device. device. Instead, Instead, she seeks seeks to enjoin enjoin Plaintiff Plaintiff ~om f!om posting posting about about this this case case on Facebook. Facebook and various various websites websites and also from e-mailing e-mailing Defendant Defendant Anson's Anson's parents parents and nonnonparty party Jules Jules Taylor. Taylor. As the the requested requested relief relief does does not implicate implicate the use of of a disclosure disclosure device device within within the meaning meaning ofCPLR ofCPLR §3103(a), s3103(a), Defendant Defendant Anson's Anson's request request for relief relief under under that that section section is denied. denied. Moreover, Moreover, even even considering considering Defendant Defendant Anson's Anson's requested requested relief relief without without reference reference to CPLR CPLR §3103(a), s3103(a), such relief relief would would be denied denied for the same same reasons reasons that Plaintiff's Plaintiffs similar similar requests requests were were denied denied in the December December 20, 2018 2018 Order. Order. The allegations allegations detailed detailed by Defendant Defendant Anson Anson in the instant instant application application do not rise to the level which which would would warrant warrant the restraint restraint of of Plaintiff's Plaintiffs speech and actions. actions. 1I speech Finally, Finally, Defendant Defendant Anson Anson also seeks seeks sanctions sanctions against against Plaintiffs Plaintiffs counsel, counsel, Thomas Thomas F. Vasti, Vasti, Ill, III, Esq., Esq., for frivolous frivolous conduct. conduct. Defendant Defendant Anson Anson alleges alleges that Mr. Vasti Vasti has has knowingly knowingly asserted asserted material material factual factual statements statements that that are false, in contravention contravention of of Rule Rule 3 3..1I(b)(3) of the Rules Rules (b )(3) of of of Professional Professional Conduct Conduct (22 NYCRR NYCRR 1200.0). 1200.0). Upon Upon reviewing reviewing the factual factual allegations allegations in support support of of the motion motion and Mr. Vasti's Vasti's extensive extensive submissions submissions in opposition, opposition, the Court Court finds that that Defendant Defendant Anson Anson has not not demonstrated demonstrated that that Mr. Vasti Vasti asserted asserted material material factual factual statements statements that that are false. Therefore, Therefore, Defendant Defendant Anson's An'son's motion motion for sanctions sanctions is denied. denied. Accordingly, Accordingly, it is hereby hereby ORDERED ORDERED that that Defendant Defendant Anson's Anson's motion motion for consolidation consolidation is denied denied as moot; moot; and it is [* 3] 1 I The The Court, Court, again, again, strongly strongly recommends recommends that that the parties parties come come to a mutual mutual agreement agreement that that during during the the pendency pendency of of this action, they shall cease cease and desist from publicly publicly disseminating disseminating information about this case on social social media, media, public access access television television and/or other internet platforms, or through e-mail correspondence correspondence with non-parties. The The Court has ofcontact 4 Court has also also previously previously recommended recommended that the the parties parties3not contact witnesses identified identified by opposing opposing parties, parties. any witnesses other other than durinP" durinQ deno4-ition<: denosition... ,f\pp i::-N FN.:1 npl"pmhpr ")" ")f)12 () •.~ •.••. ,(,,,,, 4 n INDEX NO. 2016-52818 FILED: DUTCHESS COUNTY CLERK 02/03/2020 02:13 PM • NYSCEF DOC. NO. 372 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/03/2020 \ further, further, ORDERED that the remainder remainder of of Defendant Defendant Anson's Anson's motion motion is DENIED. DENIED. ORDERED that The foregoing foregoing constitutes Order of of the Court. Court. The constitutes the Decision Decision and Order Dated: Dated: Poughkeepsie, Poughkeepsie, New New York York January 2020 January 31, 3 I, 2020 \ ~~.av CHRISTI JOCKER, To: To all parties parties via ECF ECF 4 [* 4] 4 of 4 J.S.c. --

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.