Williams v. Norman

New York Court of Appeals

Williams v. Norman

311 N.E.2d 503, 34 N.Y.2d 626, 355 N.Y.S.2d 368, 1974 N.Y. LEXIS 1696

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 27, 1974

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 311 N.E.2d 503 (Williams v. Norman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Williams v. Norman, 311 N.E.2d 503, 34 N.Y.2d 626, 355 N.Y.S.2d 368, 1974 N.Y. LEXIS 1696 (N.Y. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

Memobandtjm. The trial court’s failure to order the recording of the summations when this was specifically requested by a litigant’s attorney was error (Robinson v. Ferens, 33 A D 2d 688; cf. Devine v. Keller, 32 A D 2d 34; see, also, Judiciary Law, § 295). However, it appears that portions of the summation objected to and statements and rulings thereon were recorded. Since the pertinent colloquies during summation were adequately reconstructed for purposes of appellate review, and since there appears to be no material issue which this court is [628]*628unable to review because of an inadequate record, we hold that the error in this case was harmless.

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Rabin and Stevens concur.

Order affirmed, without costs, in memorandum.

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

Memobandtjm. The trial court’s failure to order the recording of the summations when this was specifically requested by a litigant’s attorney was error (Robinson v. Ferens, 33 A D 2d 688; cf. Devine v. Keller, 32 A D 2d 34; see, also, Judiciary Law, § 295). However, it appears that portions of the summation objected to and statements and rulings thereon were recorded. Since the pertinent colloquies during summation were adequately reconstructed for purposes of appellate review, and since there appears to be no material issue which this court is [628]*628unable to review because of an inadequate record, we hold that the error in this case was harmless.

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Rabin and Stevens concur.

Order affirmed, without costs, in memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

311 N.E.2d 503, 34 N.Y.2d 626, 355 N.Y.S.2d 368, 1974 N.Y. LEXIS 1696, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-norman-ny-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack