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
FAMILY COURT DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DIRECT THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES (DSS) TO COMMENCE A NEGLECT PROCEEDING (THIRD DEPT).
Letters Between Attorney and City Re: Fees Did Not Create Unilateral Contract
Premises Clause Prevails Over Habendum Clause in a Deed/Failure to Expressly Label Parties and Include the Parties’ Addresses Does Not Invalidate a Deed
FAILURE TO READ JURY NOTE VERBATIM WAS A MODE OF PROCEEDINGS ERROR REQUIRING REVERSAL.
THIS ACTION WAS BROUGHT BY THE OWNERS OF RENTAL PROPERTIES IN THE DEFENDANT VILLAGE ALLEGING, AMONG OTHER CAUSES OF ACTION, VIOLATIONS OF THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS BY THE VILLAGE “NUISANCE LAW” WHICH WAS DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE IT INFRINGED ON THE TENANTS’ RIGHT TO CALL THE POLICE (“NUISANCE POINTS” WERE ASSESSED FOR CALLS TO THE POLICE); THE ACTION BY THE RENTAL-PROPERTY OWNERS WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT). ​
PETITIONER ENTITLED TO A FRYE HEARING TO DETERMINE THE EFFICACY OF AN ‘OTHER SPECIFIED PARAPHILIC DISORDER’ (OSPD) DIAGNOSIS IN THIS DANGEROUS SEX OFFENDER CIVIL CONFINEMENT HEARING (THIRD DEPT).
Forcing Defendant to Go to Trial When His Expert on the Intoxication Defense Was Not Available Rendered Defendant’s Guilty Plea Involuntary and Coerced
THE FINDINGS LEADING TO THE TERMINATION OF PETITIONER WERE CONCLUSORY AND DID NOT ALLOW MEANINGFUL REVIEW; PETITIONER’S SUPERVISOR, WHO BROUGHT THE MISCONDUCT CHARGES, CHOSE THE HEARING OFFICER AND TESTIFIED AT THE HEARING, SHOULD RECUSE HERSELF FROM FURTHER PROCEEDINGS ON REMITTAL (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

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,...