You are here: / / Excessive Intervention by Trial Judge Required New Trial
, ,

Excessive Intervention by Trial Judge Required New Trial

Over a partial dissent, the Second Department granted defendant a new trial before a different justice in a medical malpractice case based upon the trial judge’s erroneous exclusion of evidence, excessive intervention in the trial, and an erroneous (“Noseworthy”) jury instruction. With respect to the judicial intervention, the Second Department wrote:

The defendant was … deprived of a fair trial by the court’s excessive intrusion into the examination of witnesses, and by the nature and extent of its questioning and comments … . It is axiomatic that the trial court “has broad authority to control the courtroom, rule on the admission of evidence, elicit and clarify testimony, expedite the proceedings and to admonish counsel and witnesses when necessary” … . Nonetheless, a trial court must be “mindful that its participation in the questioning of witnesses has the potential to influence the jury and, thus, when it intervenes to clarify testimony or elicit a responsive answer, it must be careful to do so in an evenhanded and temperate manner” … . Here, while the trial court had the authority to elicit and clarify the defense witnesses’ testimony, the record shows that on repeated occasions, including those specifically discussed by our dissenting colleague, it did not do so in an evenhanded and temperate manner. The court conveyed an impression of incredulity with respect to the defense witnesses’ opinions, as reflected by the record … . Moreover, the court’s incredulity had an improper cumulative effect … . Nunez v New York City Health & Hosps Corp…, 2013 NY Slip Op 06350, 2nd Dept 10-2-13

 

You might also like
Defendant Did Not Demonstrate Lack of Constructive Notice in Slip and Fall Case—Slip and Fall Cause of Action Should Not Have Been Dismissed.
Mother Never Waived Her Right to Counsel in Custody Proceedings–Denial of Mother’s Petition for Custody Reversed
MOTION TO VACATE DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).
IF THE WORKER’S COMPENSATION BOARD FINDS A DEFENDANT IN A CONSTRUCTION-ACCIDENT ACTION WAS PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER, PLAINTIFF’S RECOVERY AGAINST THE EMPLOYER IS RESTRICTED TO WORKER’S COMPENSATION BENEFITS AND OTHER DEFENDANTS CANNOT MAINTAIN ACTIONS FOR CONTRIBUTION OR INDEMNIFICATION AGAINST THAT EMPLOYER (SECOND DEPT).
Defendant Convicted of Violating an Unconstitutional Statute Has Committed No Crime
Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction
THE REAL ESTATE PURCHASE CONTRACT DID NOT INCLUDE THE CLOSING DATE OR THE MORTGAGE TERMS; THE CONTRACT WAS THEREFORE UNENFORCEABLE PURSUANT TO THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS (SECOND DEPT).
Disposing of Key Evidence Warranted Striking of Answer

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

Copyright © 2023 New York Appellate Digest, LLC
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Error to Dismiss Failure-to-Mitigate-Damages Affirmative Defense in Contract... Excessive Intervention and Improper Conduct by Trial Judge Required New Tri...