Capicotto v. Capicotto

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Capicotto v. Capicotto

206 A.D.2d 829, 616 N.Y.S.2d 300, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7717

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJuly 15, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 206 A.D.2d 829 (Capicotto v. Capicotto) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Capicotto v. Capicotto, 206 A.D.2d 829, 616 N.Y.S.2d 300, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7717 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: We affirm for reasons stated in the decision at Supreme Court (Glownia, J.). We add only that the record is not sufficient to enable us to review plaintiff’s contention that a tape-recorded telephone conversation between the parties was admitted at trial in violation of a stipulation between the parties (see, National Fire Ins. Co. v Shearman, 223 App Div 127, 129; Tomlinson v Town of Southampton, 143 App Div 487). Further, because the tape was merely cumulative to defendant’s testimony regarding the threats made by plaintiff during the taped conversation, any error the court may have made in admitting the tape is harmless. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Glownia, J.—Invalidate Separation Agreement.) Present— Green, J. P., Balio, Lawton, Wesley and Boehm, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: We affirm for reasons stated in the decision at Supreme Court (Glownia, J.). We add only that the record is not sufficient to enable us to review plaintiff’s contention that a tape-recorded telephone conversation between the parties was admitted at trial in violation of a stipulation between the parties (see, National Fire Ins. Co. v Shearman, 223 App Div 127, 129; Tomlinson v Town of Southampton, 143 App Div 487). Further, because the tape was merely cumulative to defendant’s testimony regarding the threats made by plaintiff during the taped conversation, any error the court may have made in admitting the tape is harmless. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Glownia, J.—Invalidate Separation Agreement.) Present— Green, J. P., Balio, Lawton, Wesley and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

206 A.D.2d 829, 616 N.Y.S.2d 300, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7717, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/capicotto-v-capicotto-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack