JOEL R. BRANDES CONSULTING SERVICES, INC.
  • Home
  • Bookstore
    • New York Matrimonial Trial Handbook
    • New York Matrimonial Trial Handbook 2022 Update Pdf Edition
    • Books about Divorce and Family Law
  • Conduct of Trial
    • Order of Trial - In General
    • Order of Trial - Opening and Closing statements: When and how to make them
    • Order of Trial - Motion to Dismiss After Opening Statementage
    • Conduct of Trial - Right to Cross-Examination of Witness
    • Conduct of Trial - Right to Call Witnesses for Direct Examination
    • Conduct of Trial - Scope of Cross-Examination - Making Adverse Witness Own Witness
    • Conduct of Trial - Redirect Examination
    • ​Conduct of Trial - Redirect Examination - Rule of Completeness
    • Conduct of Trial - Re-Cross Examination of Witness
    • Conduct of Trial - Motion to Dismiss for failure to establish a Prima Facie Case
    • Conduct of Trial - Courtroom Decorum for Counsel and Court - Addressing the Judge - Approaching the Bench
    • Conduct of Trial - Calling a Witness to the Stand to Testify
    • Conduct of Trial - Method of Calling a Witness to the Stand - Presenting Witnesses
    • Conduct of Trial - Requirement that Witness Have Personal Knowledge
    • Conduct of Trial - Examination of Witnesses - Method of Examination - Improper Questions
    • Conduct of Trial – Importance of Objections to Inadmissible Evidence or Improper Questions
    • Conduct of Trial - Method of Making an Objection
    • Conduct of Trial - Voir Dire to Challenge Foundation for Introduction of Evidence
    • Conduct of Trial - Leading Questions - What they are and when they are permitted
    • Conduct of Trial - Method of Making Objection to Leading Question
    • Conduct of Trial - Refreshing the Witness’s Recollection
    • Conduct of Trial - Questions for Refreshing Witness Recollection
    • Conduct of Trial - Refreshing Recollection of Witness - Past recollection recorded
    • ​Conduct of Trial - Motion for Reconsideration of Prior Ruling
    • Conduct of Trial - Method of Making Motion to Reconsider Prior Ruling
    • ​Conduct of Trial - Motion to Adjourn Trial - Defendant’s Objection to proceed with Defense before Plaintiff Rests
    • ​Conduct of Trial - Method of Making Motion to Adjourn - Objection to proceed with Defense before Plaintiff Rests
    • Conduct of Trial - Continuing Objection
    • Conduct of Trial - Motion to Strike Evidence Improperly Admitted
    • Conduct of Trial - Motion to Strike Evidence Admitted Subject to Connection
    • Conduct of Trial - Offer of Proof - What is it?
    • Conduct of Trial - Method of Making an Offer of Proof
    • ​Conduct of Trial - Exclusion of Witnesses from Courtroom
    • Conduct of Trial - Method of Making Request to Exclude Witnesses
    • Conduct of Trial - Discretion of Judge to Question Witnesses
    • Conduct of Trial - Right of Court to Compel Testimony
    • Conduct of Trial - Right of Trial Judge to Call own Witness.
  • Trial Testimony
    • Trial Testimony - Right to Confer with Counsel
    • Trial Testimony - Right to Interpreter for Person Who Can Not Communicate with Court
    • Trial Testimony - Calling the Adverse Party as a Witness
    • Trial Testimony - Cross Examination - Modes of impeachment
    • ​Trial Testimony - Cross - Examination - Impeachment of Witnesses
    • Trial Testimony - Cross-Examination - Impeachment Limited by Collateral Evidence Rule
    • Trial Testimony - Cross Examination - Impeachment - Reputation for Veracity
    • Trial Testimony - Cross Examination - Reputation for Veracity - Laying Foundation for Impeachment Testimony of Bad Reputation for Veracity
    • Trial Testimony - Cross Examination - Reputation for Veracity - Questions for Impeachment Testimony of Bad Reputation for Veracity
    • Trial Testimony - Cross - Examination - Impeachment of Witness by Prior Inconsistent Statement and Questions for Introduction
    • Trial Testimony - Testimony of Child
    • Trial Testimony- Cross - Examination – Inadmissibility of Proof of Prior Arrest, Indictment or Conviction for Petty Crime
    • Trial Testimony - Cross - Examination - Attempt to Procure False Evidence Competent as an Admission
    • Trial Testimony - Cross-Examination - Impeachment of Witness by Criminal Conviction
    • ​Trial Testimony - Cross-Examination - Impeachment of Witness by Showing Bias, Hostility, or Interest
    • ​Trial Testimony - Cross - Examination - Impeachment by Showing Witness Hostile to Party
    • Trial Testimony- Cross - Examination - Impeachment by Showing Predisposition
    • Trial Testimony - Questions for Impeaching Witness on Cross - Examination by Showing Hostility
    • ​Trial Testimony - Impeaching own Witness
    • Trial Testimony - Prior Testimony - Use of Depositions at Trial or Hearing
    • Trial Testimony - Prior Testimony - Use of Deposition from Prior Action
    • Trial Testimony - Prior Testimony - Effect of using deposition.
    • ​Trial Testimony - Prior Testimony - Use of Deposition Subject to Rules of Evidence
    • Trial Testimony - Prior Testimony - Questions for Impeaching Witness on Cross Examination by Prior Deposition Testimony
    • Trial Testimony - Prior Testimony - Use of Answers to Interrogatories
    • Trial Testimony - Prior Testimony - Use of Answers to Interrogatories from Prior Action
    • Trial Testimony - Prior Testimony - Effect of using Answers to Interrogatories.
    • Trial Testimony - Prior Testimony - Use of Answers to interrogatories Subject to Rules of Evidence
    • Trial Testimony - Prior Testimony - Questions for Impeaching Witness on Cross Examination by Answers to interrogatories
    • Trial Testimony - Prior Testimony - Admission of Prior Testimony
    • Trial Testimony - Prior Testimony - Admission of Prior Testimony Subject to Objection
    • Trial Testimony - Prior Testimony - Necessity of Foundation for Admission of Prior Testimony
    • Trial Testimony - Prior Testimony - Questions for Impeaching Witness on Cross Examination by Prior Testimony
    • Trial Testimony - Method of Marking Documents as Exhibits for Identification and Offering them into Evidence
    • Trial Testimony - Method of Offering Exhibit Marked for Identification into Evidence - Standard Questions
  • Rules of Evidence in Matrimonial Actions
    • Rules of Evidence - In General
    • Evidence and Proof - Competent and Material
    • ​Admissibility of Evidence - General Rule
    • Burden of Proof - Standards of Proof
    • Burden of Proof - Fair Preponderance of Credible Evidence - Clear and Convincing Evidence
    • Burden of Proof - Clear and Convincing Evidence in Matrimonial Actions
    • ​Burden of Proof - Presumptions
    • ​Burden of Proof - “Competent Proof” in Family Court Proceedings
    • ​Standards of Proof for Overcoming Presumptions in Matrimonial Actions
    • ​Foundation for Evidence - Fundamental Error and Harmless Error
    • Foundation for Evidence - Stare Decisis - The Doctrine of Precedent
    • Foundation for Evidence - Law of the Case
    • Foundation for Evidence - Judicial Estoppel
    • Foundation for Evidence - Rule Against Inconsistent Positions
    • Foundation for Evidence - Estoppel from Presenting Evidence at Trial Based Upon Contents of Response to Discovery Demand
    • Foundation for Evidence - Judicial Notice of Law and Facts
    • Foundation for Evidence - Method of Asking Court to Take Judicial Notice of a Fact
    • Foundation for Evidence - Judicial Notice of Testimony at Prior Pendente lite Hearing
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Settlement Offers Not Admissible
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Admissions and Letters by Party’s Attorney Admissible in Evidence
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Presumption that Only Admissible Evidence Was Considered By the Trial Court.
    • Admissibility of Evidence – Rule against Hearsay
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Exceptions to the Rule against Hearsay Applicable in Matrimonial Case
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Exceptions to the Rule against Hearsay - Verbal or operative acts and State of Mind
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Exceptions to the Rule against Hearsay - State of Mind
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Exceptions to the Rule against Hearsay - Present Sense Impression and Excited Utterance/Spontaneous Declaration
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay - Not Necessary to Lay Foundation For Admission of Certified Non-Party Business Records Produced Pursuant to Subpoena - CPLR 3122-a.
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Exceptions to the Rule against Hearsay - Expressions of Intent
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Exceptions to the Rule against Hearsay - Evidence of Abuse or Neglect in Custody and Child Protective Proceedings
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Exceptions to the Rule against Hearsay - Former Testimony
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Exceptions to the Rule against Hearsay - Admissions
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Exceptions to the Rule against Hearsay - Admission of New Spouse
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Exceptions to the Rule against Hearsay - Past recollection recorded
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Exceptions to the Rule against Hearsay - Business Records
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Exceptions to the Rule against Hearsay - Laying a Foundation for and Questions for Offering Business Records into Evidence
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay - Business Records - Admission of Hospital bills and Records, Records and Reports of Genetic Marker or DNA tests, and Payment Records
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Exceptions to the Rule against Hearsay - Admission of Certified Hospital, Library, and Government Records.
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay - Admission of Business Records - Other Certification Substitutes for Foundation Testimony.
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay - Admissibility of Medical Reports - Not admissible As Business Records Where They Contain Doctor's Opinion or Expert Proof
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Exceptions to the Rule against Hearsay - Laying a Foundation for Admission of Business Records and Records of Municipality into Evidence - Summary of Rule
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Exceptions to the Rule against Hearsay - Questions for Laying a Foundation for and Offering Business and Municipality Records into Evidence
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Exceptions to the Rule against Hearsay - Method of Laying a Foundation for and Offering into Evidence Certified Records of Business or Municipality
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Exceptions to the Rule against Hearsay - Business Records Rule - Business Duty
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Results of Lie Detector Test Inadmissible
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Privilege - Testimony of One Spouse against the Other. - Action founded Upon Adultery - In General
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Expert Report Inadmissible Without Consent
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Privilege - Testimony of One Spouse against the Other- Action Founded Upon Adultery - As to Non-access
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Privilege - Testimony of One Spouse Against the Other – Actions for Divorce, Separation or Annulment - Confidential Communications.
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Privilege - Testimony of One Spouse against the Other - Confidential Communications - Waiver
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Privilege - Confidential Communications - Waiver
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Privilege - Testimony of One Spouse for the Other - Action founded Upon Adultery
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Privilege - Confessions and Admissions - Action Founded Upon Adultery
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Privilege - Conduct Prior to Marriage - Action Founded Upon Adultery.
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Privilege - Attorney - Client Privilege - Civil Practice Law and Rules § 4501.
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Privilege - Psychologist - Patient Privilege - Civil Practice Law and Rules § 4507.
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Privilege - Physician, dentist, podiatrist, chiropractor and nurse Privilege - Civil Practice Law and Rules § 4507.
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Privilege - Clergy - Penitent Privilege - Civil Practice Law and Rules § 4505.
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Privilege - Social worker - Patient Privilege - Civil Practice Law and Rules § 4508(a).
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Privilege - Rape crisis counselor - client Privilege - Civil Practice Law and Rules § 4510.
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Practice Point - Privilege - Confidential Communications
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Privilege - Fifth Amendment Privilege against Self-Incrimination
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Privilege - Method of Making Objection to Question on Fifth Amendment Grounds
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Privilege - Adverse Inference from Failure of Party to Testify and Failure to Call Favorable Witness - Missing Witness Rule in Civil Case
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Privilege - New York Privilege against Self-incrimination - Civil Practice Law and Rules §4501.
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Privilege - Electronic Communication of Privileged Communications - Civil Practice Law and Rules § 4548
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Evidence Illegally Obtained. – Unlawful Entry, Search and Seizure and Electronic Surveillance of Family Conversations – Exceptions for Custody and Article 10 Cases
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Suppression of Illegally Obtained Eavesdropping Evidence - Civil Practice Law and Rules § 4506(a) - Vicarious Consent for Child
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Motion to Suppress Illegally Obtained Eavesdropping Evidence under CPLR § 4506
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Illegal Interception of Electronic Evidence - Electronic Evidence Defined
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Social Networking Sites
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Admissibility of Electronic Evidence
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Authentication of Instant Message
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Authentication of Text Message and Questions for Introduction into Evidence
    • Questions to Lay Foundation for Introduction of text message into evidence
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Authentication of Blogs and Websites
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Authentication of email and Questions for Introduction
    • Questions to Lay Foundation for Introduction of email into evidence
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Evidence Obtained By Spyware - CPLR 4506
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Admissibility of Audio and Visual Recordings
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Admissibility of Audio and Visual Recordings - Foundation for Admission of Recordings
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Questions for Laying Foundation for Admission of Recorded telephone call into Evidence
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Questions for Laying Foundation for Admission of Transcript of Sound Recorded telephone call into Evidence
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Best evidence rule
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Parol Evidence Rule
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Authentication of Foreign Records and Documents for Use at Trial
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Spoliation - Unfavorable Inference - Preclusion
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Inadmissibility of Evidence Protected by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Admissibility of Foreign Language Exhibits and Affidavits and Papers
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Authentication of official record of court or government office in the United States
    • Practice Point - Admissibility of Charts and Summaries Counsel may be permitted to use charts to summarize documents already in evidence where the charts are based solely on information already in evidence. A foundation must be laid, demonstrating that
    • Practice Point – Testimony about Out of Court Statements Made by Third Party.
    • Practice Point - No Client - Expert Privilege.
    • Practice Point - Trial Evidence not Limited by Scope of Pretrial Disclosure
    • Practice Point - Effect of the Failure of a Party to Deny or Contradict Evidence or Pleadings
    • Practice Point - Effect of withholding Evidence in Your Possession, or Failure to Call a Witness
  • Opinion Evidence
    • Opinion Evidence and Need for Expert Opinion
    • Opinion Evidence - Form of expert opinion
    • Opinion Evidence - Admissibility of Expert Testimony - Basis for Admission of Expert Opinion
    • Opinion Evidence - Impeaching Your Own Expert Witness.
    • Opinion Evidence - Opinion of Ordinary Witness as to ownership, intent, belief and value of property or services.
    • Opinion Evidence - Cross Examination of Expert Witnesses - Impeaching the Expert
    • Opinion Evidence
    • Opinion Evidence – Qualification of Expert and Weight of Testimony
    • Opinion Evidence - Expert Cannot Be Compelled to Testify
  • Custody Proceedings - Rules of Evidence
    • Custody Proceedings - Evidence - Admissibility of Hearsay
    • Custody Proceedings - Evidence - Use of Experts, Evaluations, and Reports
    • Custody Proceedings - Evidence - Investigations
    • Custody Proceedings – Evidence - In-camera and Lincoln interviews
    • Custody Proceedings – Evidence - Confidential communications - Waiver in Custody Cases
    • Custody Proceedings - Evidence - Child Permitted to Assert Psychologist - Patient Privilege
    • Custody Proceedings - Evidence - Admissibility of child abuse reports
    • Custody Proceedings - Evidence - Child as a Witness
  • Questions for the Examination of Witnesses
    • Questions for Placing Stipulation on the Record and Allocution
    • Questions for prima facie economic case - Direct Examination of Client – General Questions
    • Questions for Prima Facie Custody Case -Direct Examination of Party
  • About
  • Contact us
Joel R. Brandes Consulting Services Bookstore
Picture
​Conduct of Trial - Right of Trial Judge to Call own Witness.
 
          The same principals apply when a trial judge calls his own witness as when he cross-examines a witness. Trial judges have wide discretion in directing the presentation of evidence but must exercise that discretion appropriately and without prejudice to the parties. Trial courts sometimes must take a more active role in the presentation of evidence in order to clarify a confusing issue or to avoid misleading the trier of fact.[1]
 
          In People v. Arnold, [2] the issue was whether a trial court, in the exercise of discretion, can call its own witness. Defense counsel advised the court that he had a witness outside the courtroom, but after speaking to the witness rested without calling any further witnesses. The court inquired if the witness was outside and then said: ‘All right. I would want to ask him a couple of questions. Bring him in, please.” Defense counsel placed an objection on the record. The trial court gave no reason for calling the witness and did not articulate the consequences of doing so. The court simply called the witness after both sides had rested and had consciously and deliberately chosen not to call him.  The Court of Appeals held that under the circumstances of this case, the court abused its discretion as a matter of law. It assumed the parties’ traditional role of deciding what evidence to present and introduced evidence that had the effect of corroborating the prosecution’s witnesses and discrediting defendant on a key issue. Although it did not appear from the record that the Trial Judge intended to give an advantage to either side, he abused his discretion in calling the witness on a key issue when both parties chose not to, and it resulted in prejudicial error.  The Court stated: “We do not hold that a court may never call its own witness over the objection of a party. In those unusual circumstances in which a court feels compelled to do so, it should explain why, and invite comment from the parties. In that way, the court can consider what it aims to gain against any claims of possible prejudice. Moreover, an appellate court will have a basis on which to review the trial court's exercise of discretion.”[3]  The Court of Appeals observed that  a case calling for special expertise, or other such circumstances, may require a trial court to call its own witness, citing as an example Family Ct Act § 350.4 [2].[4] It noted that, even among jurisdictions where a rule of evidence or statute allows a court to call a witness, the practice is “not particularly desirable” and should be engaged in sparingly, so as to retain the court's impartiality. [5]
 
           Counsel should object, with specific objections, if the role of the judge in questioning witnesses goes beyond clarification of the issues and appears to become partisanship or biased. [6]
 
         The court may not call its own witnesses to establish that a witness committed perjury.  Conflict in the testimony of witnesses presents a fundamental question of fact for resolution by the court, as the trier of the facts, on the basis of the evidence presented. Perjury is a criminal offense, and the examination of witnesses to ascertain whether a basis exists for prosecution is the province of the District Attorney's Office and the Grand Jury, not a civil trial court. Where the record suggests that perjury has been committed, the matter may, in the sound exercise of court's discretion, be referred to district attorneys’ office for investigation. [7]


     [1]  People v Moulton, 43 NY2d 944, 945 [1978]; People v Jamison, 47 NY2d 882, 883 (1979).
          In Kennedy v. Kennedy, 256 A.D.2d 1048, 683 N.Y.S.2d 608 (3d Dept.,1998) the Appellate Division held that questions posed by the  trial court to the husband's expert in a divorce action were a proper attempt to clarify the expert's "guarantee" of valuation of marital assets.
          In Accardi v. City of New York, 121 A.D.2d 489, 503 N.Y.S.2d 818 (2d Dept.,1986) the Appellate Division held that the trial judge may assume an active role in the examination of witnesses where it is proper or necessary to facilitate or expedite the orderly progress of the trial.

     [2]  People v. Arnold, 98 N.Y.2d 63 745 N.Y.S.2d 782, (2002)

     [3]  People v. Arnold, 98 N.Y.2d 63 745 N.Y.S.2d 782 (2002).
            In Matter of Carrol v Gammerman, 193 A.D.2d 202, 602 N.Y.S.2d 841 (1st Dept, 1993) after both sides rested, the Court indicated an interest in hearing testimony from two witnesses, who resided in Paris, either in person or by way of deposition. When counsel for petitioners protested, the court announced, “Counsel, I am not going to close this proceeding without hearing from Mr. Bernard [Haim] and from Mr. Music. That is my ruling.” In this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, the Appellate Division held that it was  beyond respondent's power as a Supreme Court Justice to compel the proposed witnesses, residing in France, to attend at trial in this jurisdiction and give evidence (Constitution Art. 6, § 1; Judiciary Law § 2–b[1] ). Turning to the merits of petitioners' application, it observed that it is well settled that a court may conduct limited examination of a witness to elicit significant facts, clarify an issue or facilitate the orderly and expeditious progress of the trial. But, by presuming to direct the production of testimony from witnesses neither deposed by the parties nor called by them at trial, the Trial Justice has transgressed the bounds of adjudication and arrogated to himself the function of advocate, thus abandoning the impartiality required of his office. Perjury is a criminal offense, and the examination of witnesses to ascertain whether a basis exists for prosecution is the province of the District Attorney's Office and the Grand Jury, not a civil trial court.  Respondent asserted no valid ground for the introduction of the testimony of the proposed additional witnesses into this action. If, in the opinion of the court, a party has failed to introduce sufficient evidence to support the judgment sought, the clear option available to the court is to render judgment in favor of the adversarial party. Similarly, if the testimony of witnesses presented by one party is unworthy of belief, it is incumbent upon the court, as trier of the facts, to make findings in favor of the adversarial party.
          In Matter of Jacquilin M, 83 A.D.3d 844, 922 N.Y.S.2d 111 (2 Dept, 2011) the child appealed from Family Court order which adjudged her to be a juvenile delinquent. Although her contention that she was deprived of a fair trial because the Judge took on the function of an advocate by excessively intervening in the fact-finding hearing was unpreserved for appellate review, the Appellate Division reached the issue in the exercise of its interest of justice jurisdiction, because the Judge's excessive intervention deprived the appellant of her right to a fair fact-finding hearing.  It observed that although trial courts may appropriately take an active role in the presentation of evidence "in order to clarify a confusing issue or to avoid misleading the trier of fact" (People v. Arnold, 98 N.Y.2d 63, 67), the function of the judge is "to protect the record at trial, not to make it.” Thus, while a certain degree of judicial intervention in the presentation of evidence is permissible, "the line is crossed when the judge takes on either the function or appearance of an advocate at trial.” These principles apply in bench trials, including juvenile delinquency proceedings. Here, the Family Court Judge took on the function and appearance of an advocate by extensively participating in both the direct and cross-examination of the two presentment agency witnesses and eliciting testimony which strengthened the presentment agency's case.  When the appellant indicated, during the course of her direct examination, that a certain document which would support her defense had been turned over to a Probation Department officer, the Judge interrupted her testimony to question a Probation Department Court Liaison who was present in the courtroom about whether documents of this nature would indeed be kept by the Probation Department.  The Judge then summoned the Probation Department officer assigned to the appellant's case to the courtroom, and indicated to the appellant's attorney that unless he agreed to stipulate as to what certain Probation Department records would reflect, those records would be admitted into evidence through the Probation Officer's testimony.  It was clear from the record that neither the presentment agency nor the appellant's attorney intended to call the Probation Officer as a witness or enter the Probation Department records into evidence, and the stipulation regarding what those records reflected had the effect of rebutting a portion of the appellant's testimony. Thus, the Judge essentially "assumed the parties' traditional role of deciding what evidence to present”. The Judge offered no explanation on the record as to why he felt compelled to solicit this evidence. Under these circumstances, a new fact-finding hearing was warranted.


     [4]  In Matter of Kyle FF, 85 A.D.3d 1463,  926 N.Y.S.2d 196 (3 Dept, 2011) at the dispositional hearing the parties stipulated to the admission of the predispositional report, which recommended that respondent be placed on probation for two years subject to various special conditions.  Although the parties asked that Family Court accept that recommendation and indicated that they intended to offer no further proof in this regard, Family Court called as its own witness the author of the report and questioned her extensively regarding respondent's prior admission to the local hospital's mental health unit and a subsequent mental health evaluation conducted by the Northeast Parent & Child Society.  In response to this testimony, Family Court then indicated that it would not close the proof until it obtained the corresponding records for respondent's admission/evaluation and stated its intent to issue subpoenas to that effect.  Following additional discussion, Family Court agreed to accept the discharge summary from respondent's hospital admission and closed the proof.  Thereafter, relying almost exclusively upon proof that it elicited, Family Court ordered that respondent be placed with the Office of Children and Family Services until August 31, 2011.  The Appellate Division held that Family Court improperly assumed a prosecutorial role by eliciting testimonial and documentary evidence at the dispositional hearing.  Although respondent did not object when Family Court called the author of the predispositional report as a witness and stipulated to the admission of the discharge summary, thereby rendering this issue unpreserved for review it exercised its discretion and reversed Family Court's order.  The Appellate Division observed that Family Court is vested with the discretion to call witnesses, including the author of the predispositional report (see Family Ct. Act §350.4[2] ), and may assume a more active role in the presentation of evidence in order to clarify a confusing issue or to avoid misleading the trier of fact.  However, "[t]he overarching principle restraining the court's discretion [in this regard] is that it is the function of the judge to protect the record at trial, not to make it" and the court must take care to avoid assuming "the function or appearance of an advocate" (Matter of Yadiel Roque C., 17 A.D.3d at 1169).  Even though the parties agreed with the recommendation made by the Probation Department, Family Court called and extensively questioned the author of the predispositional report, secured the production of additional documentary evidence and then, according essentially no weight to the underlying recommendation and the parties' expressed wishes, crafted a disposition based almost entirely upon proof that it elicited-a practice with which the Court previously had expressed its disapproval (see Matter of Keaghn Y., 921 N.Y.S.2d at 739;  Matter of Blaize F. [Christopher F.], 74 A.D.3d 1454, 1455 [2010];  Matter of Stampfler v. Snow, 290 A.D.2d 595, 596 [2002]). Family Court's order was reversed and the matter was remitted for a new dispositional hearing before a different judge.

     [5]  People v Arnold, 98 N.Y.2d 63, 745 NYS2d 782 (2002).

     [6]  See Prince, Richardson on Evidence, 11th Edition (Farrell) §6-206.            
           In Bolte v. Third Ave. R. Co., 38 A.D. 234, 56 N.Y.S. 1038 (1st Dept., 1899) the Appellate Division held that the action of the trial judge, in practically conducting the plaintiff's case by examining plaintiff and his witnesses while on the stand, as to points not yet touched on by the counsel, by asking them questions which would have been incompetent if asked by plaintiff's counsel, and which were leading and suggestive, warranted a reversal.

     [7] Carroll v. Gammerman,  193 A.D.2d 202, 602 N.Y.S.2d 841 (1st Dept.,1993)

​The material on our website is from  the New York Matrimonial Trial Handbook , by Joel R. Brandes of the New York Bar. It focuses on the procedural and substantive law, as well as the law of evidence, that an attorney must have at his or her fingertips when trying a New York matrimonial action or custody case.  It is intended to be an aide for preparing for a trial and as a reference for the procedure in offering and objecting to evidence during a trial.  There are numerous questions for the examination and cross-examination of witnesses. 
​Joel R. Brandes Consulting Services, Inc. ​publishes The ​New York Matrimonial Trial Handbook . It is available in Bookstores, and online in the print edition at  Amazon,  Barnes & Noble, Goodreads and other online book sellers.  

The New York Matrimonial Trial Handbook  is  available in Kindle ebook editions and epub ebook editions for all ebook readers in our website bookstore and in hard cover at our Bookbaby Bookstore. 
Joel R. Brandes Consulting Services, Inc.   
2881 NE 33rd Court (At Dock)
Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33306.
Telephone (954) 564-9883.
email to:divorce@ix.netcom.com.


​​Joel R. Brandes Consulting Services, Inc is a Florida corporation  which is owned and operated  by 
​Joel R. Brandes of The New York Law Firm of Joel R. Brandes. P.C. 
​This website is published by ​Joel R. Brandes Consulting Services, Inc., and written by Joel R. Brandes of The Law Firm of Joel R. Brandes. P.C.  Mr. Brandes has been recognized by the Appellate Division* as a "noted authority and expert on New York family law and divorce.” He is the author of  the treatise Law and The Family New York, 2d (9 volumes),Law and the Family New York Forms 2d (5 Volumes), Law and the Family New York Forms 2019 Edition (5 volumes)(Thomson Reuters),  and the New York Matrimonial Trial Handbook. Click here to visit New York Divorce and Family Law ™ the definitive site on the web for New York divorce and family law, presented by Joel R. Brandes of the Law Firm of Joel R. Brandes, P.C., 43 West 43rd Street, New York, New York 10036. (212) 859-5079.

Home

​Bookstore

About

Contact

Copyright © 2019, 2020,  Joel R. Brandes Consulting Services, Inc.
Proudly powered by Weebly
  • Home
  • Bookstore
    • New York Matrimonial Trial Handbook
    • New York Matrimonial Trial Handbook 2022 Update Pdf Edition
    • Books about Divorce and Family Law
  • Conduct of Trial
    • Order of Trial - In General
    • Order of Trial - Opening and Closing statements: When and how to make them
    • Order of Trial - Motion to Dismiss After Opening Statementage
    • Conduct of Trial - Right to Cross-Examination of Witness
    • Conduct of Trial - Right to Call Witnesses for Direct Examination
    • Conduct of Trial - Scope of Cross-Examination - Making Adverse Witness Own Witness
    • Conduct of Trial - Redirect Examination
    • ​Conduct of Trial - Redirect Examination - Rule of Completeness
    • Conduct of Trial - Re-Cross Examination of Witness
    • Conduct of Trial - Motion to Dismiss for failure to establish a Prima Facie Case
    • Conduct of Trial - Courtroom Decorum for Counsel and Court - Addressing the Judge - Approaching the Bench
    • Conduct of Trial - Calling a Witness to the Stand to Testify
    • Conduct of Trial - Method of Calling a Witness to the Stand - Presenting Witnesses
    • Conduct of Trial - Requirement that Witness Have Personal Knowledge
    • Conduct of Trial - Examination of Witnesses - Method of Examination - Improper Questions
    • Conduct of Trial – Importance of Objections to Inadmissible Evidence or Improper Questions
    • Conduct of Trial - Method of Making an Objection
    • Conduct of Trial - Voir Dire to Challenge Foundation for Introduction of Evidence
    • Conduct of Trial - Leading Questions - What they are and when they are permitted
    • Conduct of Trial - Method of Making Objection to Leading Question
    • Conduct of Trial - Refreshing the Witness’s Recollection
    • Conduct of Trial - Questions for Refreshing Witness Recollection
    • Conduct of Trial - Refreshing Recollection of Witness - Past recollection recorded
    • ​Conduct of Trial - Motion for Reconsideration of Prior Ruling
    • Conduct of Trial - Method of Making Motion to Reconsider Prior Ruling
    • ​Conduct of Trial - Motion to Adjourn Trial - Defendant’s Objection to proceed with Defense before Plaintiff Rests
    • ​Conduct of Trial - Method of Making Motion to Adjourn - Objection to proceed with Defense before Plaintiff Rests
    • Conduct of Trial - Continuing Objection
    • Conduct of Trial - Motion to Strike Evidence Improperly Admitted
    • Conduct of Trial - Motion to Strike Evidence Admitted Subject to Connection
    • Conduct of Trial - Offer of Proof - What is it?
    • Conduct of Trial - Method of Making an Offer of Proof
    • ​Conduct of Trial - Exclusion of Witnesses from Courtroom
    • Conduct of Trial - Method of Making Request to Exclude Witnesses
    • Conduct of Trial - Discretion of Judge to Question Witnesses
    • Conduct of Trial - Right of Court to Compel Testimony
    • Conduct of Trial - Right of Trial Judge to Call own Witness.
  • Trial Testimony
    • Trial Testimony - Right to Confer with Counsel
    • Trial Testimony - Right to Interpreter for Person Who Can Not Communicate with Court
    • Trial Testimony - Calling the Adverse Party as a Witness
    • Trial Testimony - Cross Examination - Modes of impeachment
    • ​Trial Testimony - Cross - Examination - Impeachment of Witnesses
    • Trial Testimony - Cross-Examination - Impeachment Limited by Collateral Evidence Rule
    • Trial Testimony - Cross Examination - Impeachment - Reputation for Veracity
    • Trial Testimony - Cross Examination - Reputation for Veracity - Laying Foundation for Impeachment Testimony of Bad Reputation for Veracity
    • Trial Testimony - Cross Examination - Reputation for Veracity - Questions for Impeachment Testimony of Bad Reputation for Veracity
    • Trial Testimony - Cross - Examination - Impeachment of Witness by Prior Inconsistent Statement and Questions for Introduction
    • Trial Testimony - Testimony of Child
    • Trial Testimony- Cross - Examination – Inadmissibility of Proof of Prior Arrest, Indictment or Conviction for Petty Crime
    • Trial Testimony - Cross - Examination - Attempt to Procure False Evidence Competent as an Admission
    • Trial Testimony - Cross-Examination - Impeachment of Witness by Criminal Conviction
    • ​Trial Testimony - Cross-Examination - Impeachment of Witness by Showing Bias, Hostility, or Interest
    • ​Trial Testimony - Cross - Examination - Impeachment by Showing Witness Hostile to Party
    • Trial Testimony- Cross - Examination - Impeachment by Showing Predisposition
    • Trial Testimony - Questions for Impeaching Witness on Cross - Examination by Showing Hostility
    • ​Trial Testimony - Impeaching own Witness
    • Trial Testimony - Prior Testimony - Use of Depositions at Trial or Hearing
    • Trial Testimony - Prior Testimony - Use of Deposition from Prior Action
    • Trial Testimony - Prior Testimony - Effect of using deposition.
    • ​Trial Testimony - Prior Testimony - Use of Deposition Subject to Rules of Evidence
    • Trial Testimony - Prior Testimony - Questions for Impeaching Witness on Cross Examination by Prior Deposition Testimony
    • Trial Testimony - Prior Testimony - Use of Answers to Interrogatories
    • Trial Testimony - Prior Testimony - Use of Answers to Interrogatories from Prior Action
    • Trial Testimony - Prior Testimony - Effect of using Answers to Interrogatories.
    • Trial Testimony - Prior Testimony - Use of Answers to interrogatories Subject to Rules of Evidence
    • Trial Testimony - Prior Testimony - Questions for Impeaching Witness on Cross Examination by Answers to interrogatories
    • Trial Testimony - Prior Testimony - Admission of Prior Testimony
    • Trial Testimony - Prior Testimony - Admission of Prior Testimony Subject to Objection
    • Trial Testimony - Prior Testimony - Necessity of Foundation for Admission of Prior Testimony
    • Trial Testimony - Prior Testimony - Questions for Impeaching Witness on Cross Examination by Prior Testimony
    • Trial Testimony - Method of Marking Documents as Exhibits for Identification and Offering them into Evidence
    • Trial Testimony - Method of Offering Exhibit Marked for Identification into Evidence - Standard Questions
  • Rules of Evidence in Matrimonial Actions
    • Rules of Evidence - In General
    • Evidence and Proof - Competent and Material
    • ​Admissibility of Evidence - General Rule
    • Burden of Proof - Standards of Proof
    • Burden of Proof - Fair Preponderance of Credible Evidence - Clear and Convincing Evidence
    • Burden of Proof - Clear and Convincing Evidence in Matrimonial Actions
    • ​Burden of Proof - Presumptions
    • ​Burden of Proof - “Competent Proof” in Family Court Proceedings
    • ​Standards of Proof for Overcoming Presumptions in Matrimonial Actions
    • ​Foundation for Evidence - Fundamental Error and Harmless Error
    • Foundation for Evidence - Stare Decisis - The Doctrine of Precedent
    • Foundation for Evidence - Law of the Case
    • Foundation for Evidence - Judicial Estoppel
    • Foundation for Evidence - Rule Against Inconsistent Positions
    • Foundation for Evidence - Estoppel from Presenting Evidence at Trial Based Upon Contents of Response to Discovery Demand
    • Foundation for Evidence - Judicial Notice of Law and Facts
    • Foundation for Evidence - Method of Asking Court to Take Judicial Notice of a Fact
    • Foundation for Evidence - Judicial Notice of Testimony at Prior Pendente lite Hearing
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Settlement Offers Not Admissible
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Admissions and Letters by Party’s Attorney Admissible in Evidence
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Presumption that Only Admissible Evidence Was Considered By the Trial Court.
    • Admissibility of Evidence – Rule against Hearsay
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Exceptions to the Rule against Hearsay Applicable in Matrimonial Case
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Exceptions to the Rule against Hearsay - Verbal or operative acts and State of Mind
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Exceptions to the Rule against Hearsay - State of Mind
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Exceptions to the Rule against Hearsay - Present Sense Impression and Excited Utterance/Spontaneous Declaration
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay - Not Necessary to Lay Foundation For Admission of Certified Non-Party Business Records Produced Pursuant to Subpoena - CPLR 3122-a.
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Exceptions to the Rule against Hearsay - Expressions of Intent
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Exceptions to the Rule against Hearsay - Evidence of Abuse or Neglect in Custody and Child Protective Proceedings
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Exceptions to the Rule against Hearsay - Former Testimony
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Exceptions to the Rule against Hearsay - Admissions
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Exceptions to the Rule against Hearsay - Admission of New Spouse
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Exceptions to the Rule against Hearsay - Past recollection recorded
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Exceptions to the Rule against Hearsay - Business Records
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Exceptions to the Rule against Hearsay - Laying a Foundation for and Questions for Offering Business Records into Evidence
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay - Business Records - Admission of Hospital bills and Records, Records and Reports of Genetic Marker or DNA tests, and Payment Records
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Exceptions to the Rule against Hearsay - Admission of Certified Hospital, Library, and Government Records.
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay - Admission of Business Records - Other Certification Substitutes for Foundation Testimony.
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay - Admissibility of Medical Reports - Not admissible As Business Records Where They Contain Doctor's Opinion or Expert Proof
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Exceptions to the Rule against Hearsay - Laying a Foundation for Admission of Business Records and Records of Municipality into Evidence - Summary of Rule
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Exceptions to the Rule against Hearsay - Questions for Laying a Foundation for and Offering Business and Municipality Records into Evidence
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Exceptions to the Rule against Hearsay - Method of Laying a Foundation for and Offering into Evidence Certified Records of Business or Municipality
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Exceptions to the Rule against Hearsay - Business Records Rule - Business Duty
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Results of Lie Detector Test Inadmissible
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Privilege - Testimony of One Spouse against the Other. - Action founded Upon Adultery - In General
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Expert Report Inadmissible Without Consent
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Privilege - Testimony of One Spouse against the Other- Action Founded Upon Adultery - As to Non-access
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Privilege - Testimony of One Spouse Against the Other – Actions for Divorce, Separation or Annulment - Confidential Communications.
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Privilege - Testimony of One Spouse against the Other - Confidential Communications - Waiver
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Privilege - Confidential Communications - Waiver
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Privilege - Testimony of One Spouse for the Other - Action founded Upon Adultery
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Privilege - Confessions and Admissions - Action Founded Upon Adultery
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Privilege - Conduct Prior to Marriage - Action Founded Upon Adultery.
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Privilege - Attorney - Client Privilege - Civil Practice Law and Rules § 4501.
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Privilege - Psychologist - Patient Privilege - Civil Practice Law and Rules § 4507.
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Privilege - Physician, dentist, podiatrist, chiropractor and nurse Privilege - Civil Practice Law and Rules § 4507.
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Privilege - Clergy - Penitent Privilege - Civil Practice Law and Rules § 4505.
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Privilege - Social worker - Patient Privilege - Civil Practice Law and Rules § 4508(a).
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Privilege - Rape crisis counselor - client Privilege - Civil Practice Law and Rules § 4510.
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Practice Point - Privilege - Confidential Communications
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Privilege - Fifth Amendment Privilege against Self-Incrimination
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Privilege - Method of Making Objection to Question on Fifth Amendment Grounds
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Privilege - Adverse Inference from Failure of Party to Testify and Failure to Call Favorable Witness - Missing Witness Rule in Civil Case
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Privilege - New York Privilege against Self-incrimination - Civil Practice Law and Rules §4501.
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Privilege - Electronic Communication of Privileged Communications - Civil Practice Law and Rules § 4548
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Evidence Illegally Obtained. – Unlawful Entry, Search and Seizure and Electronic Surveillance of Family Conversations – Exceptions for Custody and Article 10 Cases
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Suppression of Illegally Obtained Eavesdropping Evidence - Civil Practice Law and Rules § 4506(a) - Vicarious Consent for Child
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Motion to Suppress Illegally Obtained Eavesdropping Evidence under CPLR § 4506
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Illegal Interception of Electronic Evidence - Electronic Evidence Defined
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Social Networking Sites
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Admissibility of Electronic Evidence
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Authentication of Instant Message
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Authentication of Text Message and Questions for Introduction into Evidence
    • Questions to Lay Foundation for Introduction of text message into evidence
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Authentication of Blogs and Websites
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Authentication of email and Questions for Introduction
    • Questions to Lay Foundation for Introduction of email into evidence
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Evidence Obtained By Spyware - CPLR 4506
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Admissibility of Audio and Visual Recordings
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Admissibility of Audio and Visual Recordings - Foundation for Admission of Recordings
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Questions for Laying Foundation for Admission of Recorded telephone call into Evidence
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Questions for Laying Foundation for Admission of Transcript of Sound Recorded telephone call into Evidence
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Best evidence rule
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Parol Evidence Rule
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Authentication of Foreign Records and Documents for Use at Trial
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Spoliation - Unfavorable Inference - Preclusion
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Inadmissibility of Evidence Protected by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Admissibility of Foreign Language Exhibits and Affidavits and Papers
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Authentication of official record of court or government office in the United States
    • Practice Point - Admissibility of Charts and Summaries Counsel may be permitted to use charts to summarize documents already in evidence where the charts are based solely on information already in evidence. A foundation must be laid, demonstrating that
    • Practice Point – Testimony about Out of Court Statements Made by Third Party.
    • Practice Point - No Client - Expert Privilege.
    • Practice Point - Trial Evidence not Limited by Scope of Pretrial Disclosure
    • Practice Point - Effect of the Failure of a Party to Deny or Contradict Evidence or Pleadings
    • Practice Point - Effect of withholding Evidence in Your Possession, or Failure to Call a Witness
  • Opinion Evidence
    • Opinion Evidence and Need for Expert Opinion
    • Opinion Evidence - Form of expert opinion
    • Opinion Evidence - Admissibility of Expert Testimony - Basis for Admission of Expert Opinion
    • Opinion Evidence - Impeaching Your Own Expert Witness.
    • Opinion Evidence - Opinion of Ordinary Witness as to ownership, intent, belief and value of property or services.
    • Opinion Evidence - Cross Examination of Expert Witnesses - Impeaching the Expert
    • Opinion Evidence
    • Opinion Evidence – Qualification of Expert and Weight of Testimony
    • Opinion Evidence - Expert Cannot Be Compelled to Testify
  • Custody Proceedings - Rules of Evidence
    • Custody Proceedings - Evidence - Admissibility of Hearsay
    • Custody Proceedings - Evidence - Use of Experts, Evaluations, and Reports
    • Custody Proceedings - Evidence - Investigations
    • Custody Proceedings – Evidence - In-camera and Lincoln interviews
    • Custody Proceedings – Evidence - Confidential communications - Waiver in Custody Cases
    • Custody Proceedings - Evidence - Child Permitted to Assert Psychologist - Patient Privilege
    • Custody Proceedings - Evidence - Admissibility of child abuse reports
    • Custody Proceedings - Evidence - Child as a Witness
  • Questions for the Examination of Witnesses
    • Questions for Placing Stipulation on the Record and Allocution
    • Questions for prima facie economic case - Direct Examination of Client – General Questions
    • Questions for Prima Facie Custody Case -Direct Examination of Party
  • About
  • Contact us