And multiple delays caused by the plaintiff’s chosen attorney is fair to the defendant how?
I ask again: Who is going to be paying the defendant’s lawyer for the two days he spent in the courthouse while plaintiff’s lawyer argued about whether to wear a mask? It’s not fair to Mr Feuerstein to expect him simply to eat the cost, and it’s not fair to the defendant, Mayer Vaknin, to expect him to pay for whatever Feuerstein’s billing rate for that time.
And multiple delays are unusual is what you’re saying?
No, multiple delays are quite common. However, it is part of the judge’s job to limit unnecessary delays inasmuch as is possible, particularly delays due solely to one party’s failure to adhere to court procedures.
Which state(s) have actual laws* requiring the wearing of masks in public?
*You know, a law that’s been duly passed by the legislature and signed by the governor? Seems to me, most states are relying on edicts/proclamations/mandates.
The lawyer claimed he was unable to comply. Valid/necessary reason for a delay in a non-covid situation. But everyone is understandably hyped about covid so it isn’t.
The lawyer CLAIMED he was unable to comply, but he presented no evidence of that inability (e.g., a doctor’s note) and he did not appear to be visibly distressed to the judge. Defendant wants to move forward to trial now. The judge is required to be fair and impartial to all parties.
What do the New York rules of practice actually say about granting a continuance on the eve of trial and over the objections of one party?
Is it a valid reason? Does he have a doctor’s note certifying his disability breathing with a mask? And is it even relevant whether the masks are a matter of law, mandate, or policy?
Suppose that it were some other required item of apparel, instead. Suppose that the attorney claimed that wearing a shirt presented medical difficulties for him. There’s no law requiring men to wear shirts (actually, in New York, I don’t think it’s required for women, either); would the judge be required to let the lawyer come to court bare-chested?
Can you explain the difference to a non-USian? Because I’m not grokking it.
In New York, it’s a state regulation issued under authority of the Public Health Law. While details vary by jurisdiction, regulations and executive orders and emergency proclamations often have the force of law, so you’re asking for a distinction without a difference.
The plaintiff can file a new court case based on the same cause of action (the traffic accident). The case was dismissed without prejudice; had it been dismissed with prejudice, that would have precluded a new filing. Something similar in Canada might be “dismissed with leave to amend,” maybe?
Remembering I’m a non-lawyer. Unlike you.
It appears to me that @FigNorton was believing the plaintiff had lost all opportunity to ever pursue the suit again. When in fact all they lost was this particular case filing.
In more technical terms I hope to use correctly, Fig seemed to think the case was dismissed with prejudice, when it was in fact dismissed without prejudice. Big difference.
And yes, if, as he seems to believe, it was a dismissal with prejudice over lawyerly misconduct, then I would agree with him that that would be an excessive / inappropriate harm to the plaintiff over the actions of their attorney.
Fortunately that’s not what happened. AIUI.
I understand “force of law”. But why aren’t they following their own regulation?
From your link:
“Any person who is over age two and able to medically tolerate a face-covering shall be required to cover their nose and mouth with a mask or face-covering when in a public place and unable to maintain, or when not maintaining, social distance.”
So it’s “Come back when you have a lawyer who can follow the rules” not “Go away and never come back” - which sounds reasonable.
It’s even more reasonable than that. It’s “We’ll move to a smaller room so your lawyer doesn’t have to project their voice as much as that seems to be the aggravating issue here and if that’s not satisfactory, perhaps your lawyer’s firm could send a replacement if he would be willing to call them and ask. If that is also not possible, then find a lawyer who can do the above so that we can finally get you paid.”
The New York court system may have an administrative order in addition to the state regulation; I merely gave that regulation as an example of what states are doing, in response to your question.
However, assuming there is nothing besides the regulation, who decides who is able to medically tolerate a face-covering? Lawyer Greenwald did not submit a doctor’s note, for example, and he did not request time to procure medical evidence. His only request was to disband the jury and adjourn the case until June.
Thanks.
Generally speaking, the laws around disability accommodations don’t even allow someone to ask what the disability is, let alone requiring documentation.
They do, however, allow you to ask what a person’s reasonable accommodation is. The lawyer was unable to offer any reasonable accommodation, even with the judge making several suggestions.
Not wearing a mask IS a reasonable accommodation. IMHO.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why we’ve killed >500K Americans, not 100K.