Graves v. American Express

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Graves v. American Express

175 Misc. 2d 285, 669 N.Y.S.2d 463, 1997 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 667

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedNovember 24, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 175 Misc. 2d 285 (Graves v. American Express) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Graves v. American Express, 175 Misc. 2d 285, 669 N.Y.S.2d 463, 1997 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 667 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

Judgment unanimously reversed, without costs, and matter remanded to the court below for a new trial.

[286]*286Cross-examination of an adverse witness is a matter of right in every trial of a disputed issue of fact (Friedel v Board of Regents, 296 NY 347, 352; Hill v Arnold, 226 AD2d 232). Also, cross-examination is the principal means by which the believability of a witness and the truth of testimony is tested (Davis v Alaska, 415 US 308, 315-316).

A review of the record on appeal indicates that the court below prohibited defendant from cross-examining plaintiff since it did not have witnesses available for plaintiff to cross-examine. We find that the court below erred in its determination that defendant’s ability to cross-examine plaintiff was contingent upon defendant presenting witnesses for plaintiff to cross-examine. Although the procedures in Small Claims Court are relaxed, the rules of substantive law must be followed and a person’s constitutional right to due process of law includes the basic right to cross-examine witnesses (CCA 1804; Friedel v Board of Regents, supra).

Kassoff, P. J., Aronin and Chetta, JJ., concur.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

Judgment unanimously reversed, without costs, and matter remanded to the court below for a new trial.

[286]*286Cross-examination of an adverse witness is a matter of right in every trial of a disputed issue of fact (Friedel v Board of Regents, 296 NY 347, 352; Hill v Arnold, 226 AD2d 232). Also, cross-examination is the principal means by which the believability of a witness and the truth of testimony is tested (Davis v Alaska, 415 US 308, 315-316).

A review of the record on appeal indicates that the court below prohibited defendant from cross-examining plaintiff since it did not have witnesses available for plaintiff to cross-examine. We find that the court below erred in its determination that defendant’s ability to cross-examine plaintiff was contingent upon defendant presenting witnesses for plaintiff to cross-examine. Although the procedures in Small Claims Court are relaxed, the rules of substantive law must be followed and a person’s constitutional right to due process of law includes the basic right to cross-examine witnesses (CCA 1804; Friedel v Board of Regents, supra).

Kassoff, P. J., Aronin and Chetta, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

175 Misc. 2d 285, 669 N.Y.S.2d 463, 1997 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 667, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/graves-v-american-express-nyappterm-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack