You are here: / / THE ELECTRONICALLY RECORDED HEARING INCLUDED 80 QUESTIONS POSED TO A WITNESS...
,

THE ELECTRONICALLY RECORDED HEARING INCLUDED 80 QUESTIONS POSED TO A WITNESS BY COUNSEL BUT ONLY FOUR ANSWERS WERE AUDIBLE; NEW HEARING WITH A STENOGRAPHER ORDERED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the record on appeal was insufficient and ordered a new hearing with a stenographer. The hearing was electronically recorded. Counsel ask a witness 80 questions but only four answers were audible. Matter of Jereline Z. v Joseph AA., 2022 NY Slip Op 02848, Third Dept 4-28-22

Practice Point: If a hearing is electronically recorded but most of a significant witness’s answers are inaudible, the appeal cannot be considered. Here a new hearing with a stenographer was ordered.

 

You might also like
EXCLUSIONARY LANGUAGE IN HARASSMENT STATUTE NEED NOT BE PLED AND NEGATED IN THE CHARGING DOCUMENT; THE EXCLUSIONS ARE PROVISOS WHICH CAN BE RAISED AS DEFENSES.
CO-WORKERS’ EGREGIOUS AND LEWD BEHAVIOR, TOGETHER WITH THE EMPLOYER’S INADEQUATE RESPONSE, CONSTITUTED GOOD CAUSE FOR LEAVING EMPLOYMENT.
THE LENGTH OF THE SENTENCE WAS NOT PRONOUNCED; RESENTENCING IS REQUIRED (THIRD DEPT).
PEOPLE SHOULD HAVE INSTRUCTED THE GRAND JURY ON THE AGENCY DEFENSE IN THIS CRIMINAL SALE OF MARIJUANA CASE, INDICTMENT PROPERLY DISMISSED.
NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS WAS A NECESSARY PARTY TO THIS JAIL TIME CALCULATION PROCEEDING, ISSUE CAN BE RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME ON APPEAL, MATTER REVERSED AND REMITTED (THIRD DEPT).
SERVICE OF THE ORDER APPEALED FROM BY EMAIL DOES NOT START THE TIME TO TAKE AN APPEAL; FATHER’S REQUEST FOR TELEPHONIC AND WRITTEN CONTACT WITH HIS DAUGHTER PROPERLY DENIED; FATHER WAS INCARCERATED FOR PREDATORY SEXUAL BEHAVIOR INVOLVING A CHILD ABOUT THE SAME AGE AS HIS DAUGHTER (THIRD DEPT). ​
SORA Proof Burdens Explained
People’s Expert Was Not Qualified to Testify About “Reverse Extrapolation” in DWI Prosecution/”Reverse Extrapolation” Is an Accepted Theory However

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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

PETITIONER WAS CHARGED WITH MAKING A COMMENT TO A FELLOW EMPLOYEE AT A SOCIAL... FOR PURPOSES OF A PERMANENT NEGLECT/TERMINATION-OF-PARENTAL-RIGHTS PROCEEDING,...