View Single Post
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Tue Mar 06, 2018, 10:37am
so cal lurker so cal lurker is offline
Official Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 664
For those that don't know, in NY the Supreme Court is the lower court, not the higher court. So this is a decision of a trial judge.

And the article is horrible, as it doesn't explain anything about the basis for the court order or even what the actual order was. I would hazard a guess that the order was a preliminary injunction in which the court did not make a final decision on the merits of the claim, but concluded that the player would be irreparably harmed if she was not allowed to play while the court proceedings progressed. That would have the effect of letting her play, but not of being a final judgment on the merits. It would also mean that the suspension doesn't go away--she would still have to serve the suspension unless she ultimately prevails. But the article doesn't bother with the details as they just want the drama of the court intervening (which I agree is absurd on so many levels. . . ).
Reply With Quote