You are here: / / Children’s Attorney Entitled to Cross-Examine Petitioner’s...

Children’s Attorney Entitled to Cross-Examine Petitioner’s Witnesses Despite Taking a Position Similar to Petitioner’s

The Third Department determined the children’s attorney was entitled to ask leading questions in the cross-examination of petitioner’s witnesses, even though the the attorney for the children had taken a position similar to petitioner’s.  The similar positions did not convert petitioner’s witnesses to witnesses for the children:

…[W]e reject respondent’s contention that Family Court erred by denying her request to require the attorney for the children to cross-examine petitioner’s witnesses before respondent’s cross-examination, or by permitting the attorney for the children to ask leading questions during cross-examination. Both of these claims are premised on respondent’s incorrect view that petitioner’s witnesses effectively became witnesses for the attorney for the children when she agreed with petitioner’s position. The duty of an attorney for the child is to represent the child and advocate for his or her position (see Family Ct Act § 241…). Contrary to respondent’s claim, the fact that here the exercise of this duty resulted in a position similar to that of petitioner did not effectively convert the two parties into one entity. Accordingly, the attorney for the children was entitled to ask leading questions while cross-examining petitioner’s witnesses (see Jerome Prince, Richardson on Evidence § 6-230 at 376 [Farrell 11th ed 1995]). Matter of Aniya L, 2015 NY Slip Op 00410, 3rd Dept 1-15-15

 

You might also like
Pit Bull Acted in Self-Defense and Should Not Have Been Deemed “Dangerous;” ”Dangerous” Finding Can Not Be Based Solely On the Dog’s Breed
ORDER WHICH IS NOT ISSUED PURSUANT TO A MOTION ON NOTICE IS NOT APPEALABLE, A MOTION TO VACATE IS THE PROPER PROCEDURE.
PETITIONERS DID NOT TAKE STEPS TO PRESERVE THE STATUS QUO AS THEY SOUGHT TO VACATE A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT; THE CONSTRUCTION PROGRESSED TO THE POINT WHERE THE COURT MUST DISMISS THE APPEAL AS MOOT (THIRD DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT WAS NOT ENGAGED IN CONSTRUCTION WORK COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241 (6) WHEN A BRIDGE FORM HE WAS UNLOADING FELL ON HIM, PLAINTIFF MADE A SUFFICIENT SHOWING OF LONG-ARM JURISDICTION TO WARRANT DISCOVERY (THIRD DEPT).
ALTHOUGH MOTHER DID NOT APPEAR AT THE SCHEDULED CONFERENCE AND DID NOT HAVE A MERITORIOUS DEFENSE IN THIS NEGLECT PROCEEDING, SHE WAS NOT AWARE FINDINGS OF FACT WOULD BE MADE IN HER ABSENCE; DEFAULT ORDER VACATED ON DUE PROCESS GROUNDS (THIRD DEPT).
THE EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO THE GRAND JURY IN THIS DRUNK-DRIVING-ACCIDENT CASE SUPPORTED THE TWO COUNTS OF DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE ASSAULT STEMMING FROM INJURIES SUFFERED BY THE TWO PASSENGERS; SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED THOSE COUNTS (THIRD DEPT).
Fabricated Checks Using Defendant’s Name and Signature Were Not “Forged Instruments”
RESTITUTION ORDERED AT SENTENCING (ABOUT $45OO) WAS ABOUT $500 HIGHER THAN THE AMOUNT AGREED TO IN THE PLEA DEAL, DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA (THIRD DEPT).

Categories

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

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Claimant’s Imprisonment for a Month After His Release Date Was Not Pr... Only Out-of-Pocket Damages Allowed in Fraud Action (Re: a Real Estate Purchase...