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
Foundation for Evidence - Stare Decisis - The Doctrine of Precedent
 
            The term ‘stare decisis” is Latin for “to stand by things decided”. This is the doctrine of precedent, under which a court must follow earlier judicial decisions when the same points arise again in litigation. [1] In New York, the doctrine of stare decisis provides that once a court has decided a legal issue, subsequent cases presenting similar facts should be decided in conformity with the earlier decision. [2] 
 
           The Court of Appeals has stated that the term “stare decisis et non quieta movere” means to stand by things decided and not to disturb settled points.[3]  It has observed that doctrine of stare decisis provides that once a court has “decided a legal issue, subsequent appeals presenting similar facts should be decided in conformity with the earlier decision. Its purpose is to promote efficiency and provide guidance and consistency in future cases by recognizing that legal questions, once settled, should not be reexamined every time they are presented. The doctrine also rests upon the principle that a court is an institution, not merely a collection of individuals, and that governing rules of law do not change merely because the personnel of the court changes.” [4]

           Thus, the decisions of the Court of Appeals which have not been invalidated by changes in statute, decisional law, or constitutional requirements must be followed by all lower appellate courts, such as the appellate division and the appellate term[5], and by all courts of original jurisdiction. [6]

 
           Where there is a conflict between the decisional law of the Court of Appeals and that of Federal Courts of Appeal, the ruling by the Court of Appeals should be followed by a lower New York court.[7]  If there is a conflict between the decisions of the Court of Appeals and lower federal courts, such as the district court, the Appellate Division is bound by the ruling of the Court of Appeals.[8]
 
           The Appellate Division is a single statewide court divided into departments for administrative convenience and, therefore, the doctrine of stare decisis requires trial courts in one department to follow precedents set by the Appellate Division of another department until the Court of Appeals or the Appellate Division in that Department pronounces a contrary rule. Such considerations do not pertain to the Appellate Division. While an Appellate Division should accept the decisions of sister departments as persuasive it is free to reach a contrary result.[9] Trial courts within a Department must follow the determination of the Appellate Division in another Department until such time as the Appellate Division of that Department or the Court of Appeals passes on the question. Decisions of the Appellate Division are, in the absence of a Court of Appeals determination on the point in question, controlling and must be followed by the appellate term and by courts of original jurisdiction.[10]
                 
           Where a question has not yet been decided by an Appellate Division, inferior courts in that Department must follow the determinations of the Appellate Division in any other Department until such time as their own Appellate Division or the Court of Appeals passes upon the question.[11]
 
           Where there is no applicable decision from the Court of Appeals or from the Appellate Division in the trial court's Department and the decisions from other Appellate Divisions are conflicting, the trial court is left to fashion its own decision, giving appropriate weight and consideration to the views expressed by the distinguished Justices of the Appellate Divisions and, where statutory interpretation is involved, developing a view which is consistent with the overall objective of the statute.[12]
 
           A precedent is a decided case that furnishes a basis for determining later cases involving similar facts or issues.[13] Not all cases are precedents. The language of any opinion must be confined to the facts before the court. No opinion is an authority beyond the point actually decided.[14]
                 
            Obiter dictum
, also referred to as dicta is a judicial comment made while delivering a judicial opinion, but one that is unnecessary to the decision in the case and therefore not precedential (although it may be considered persuasive). [15]


           Obiter dicta in an opinion does not become precedent. “A judicial opinion, like evidence, is only binding so far as it is relevant, and when it wanders from the point at issue it no longer has force as an official utterance.’[16]   Expressions of the court on points not necessarily involved in a case are “obiter dicta” and do not become precedents. While they may be respected, they ought not to control the judgment in a subsequent proceeding when the same point is presented for decision. Statements and remarks by the courts concerning legal propositions not actually involved and determined in a case and not essential to the case are “obiter dicta” and do not become precedents.[17]
 
           Dictum by the Court of Appeals is entitled to respectful consideration.[18]
  A judgment of a trial court will not receive stare decisis treatment by an appellate court.[19]
                 
           Generally, unpublished decisions or opinions have no precedential value other than the persuasiveness of their reasoning· [20]





     [1]  Black's Law Dictionary (9th Ed. 2009), stare decisis

     [2]  People v. Bing, 76 N.Y.2d 331, 559 N.Y.S.2d 474, 558 N.E.2d 1011 (1990); Battle v. State, 257 A.D.2d 745, 682 N.Y.S.2d 726 (3d Dep’t 1999).

     [3]  People v. Taylor, 9 N.Y.3d 129, 848 N.Y.S.2d 554, 878 N.E.2d 969 (2007).

     [4]  People v. Bing, 76 N.Y.2d 331, 337-38, 558 N.E.2d 1011 (1990) (citing Burnet v Coronado Oil & Gas Co., 285 US 393, 407-408 [Brandeis, J., dissenting]; see also, People v Hobson, 39 NY2d 479, 488-489; see generally, Wachtler, Stare Decisis and a Changing New York Court of Appeals, 59 St John's L Rev 445, 453).

     [5]  Warnock v. Duello, 30 A.D.3d 818, 816 N.Y.S.2d 595 (3d Dep’t 2006)

     [6]  Battle v. State, 257 A.D.2d 745, 682 N.Y.S.2d 726 (3d Dep’t 1999).

     [7]  People v. Brown, 235 A.D.2d 344, 653 N.Y.S.2d 544 (1st Dep’t 1997).

     [8]  People v. Jackson, 46 A.D.3d 1110, 847 N.Y.S.2d 743 (3d Dep’t 2007).

     [9]  Mountain View Coach Lines, Inc. v. Storms, 102 A.D.2d 663, 476 N.Y.S.2d 918 (2 Dept., 1984).

     [10]  Lee v. City of Rochester, 174 Misc. 2d 763, 663 N.Y.S.2d 738 (Sup 1997), aff’d, 254 A.D.2d 790, 677 N.Y.S.2d 848 (4th Dep’t 1998) (decisions by the appellate term must be followed by courts whose appeals lie to it). Juniper Walk Condominium v. Patriot Management Corp., 3 Misc. 3d 748, 774 N.Y.S.2d 672 (City Ct. 2004) (holding that the lower court was not bound by decisions of the appellate term in another department); Yellow Book of NY L.P. v. Dimilia, 188 Misc. 2d 489, 729 N.Y.S.2d 286 (Dist. Ct. 2001); 81 Franklin Co. v. Ginaccini, 149 Misc. 2d 124, 563 N.Y.S.2d 977 (N.Y. City Civ. Ct. 1990).

     [11]  Stewart v. Volkswagen of America, Inc., 181 A.D.2d 4, 584 N.Y.S.2d 886 (2d Dep’t 1992), order rev’d on other grounds, 81 N.Y.2d 203, 597 N.Y.S.2d 612, 613 N.E.2d 518 (1993); Lane v. Michael, 183 Misc. 2d 793, 706 N.Y.S.2d 827 (City Ct. 2000); Worldwide Ins. Co. v. U.S. Capital Ins. Co., 181 Misc. 2d 480, 693 N.Y.S.2d 901 (Sup 1999).

    [12]  Summit Const. Services Group, Inc. v. Act Abatement, LLC, 935 N.Y.S.2d 499 (Sup 2011).

    [13] Black's Law Dictionary, 10th Ed.2014)

    [14] Dougherty v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of United States, 193 N.E. 897, 902, 266 N.Y. 71, 88 (1934)

    [15] Black's Law Dictionary (10th Ed. 2014)

    [16] Campbell v. New York Evening Post, 218 N.Y.S. 446, 453, 219 A.D. 169, 177 (1 Dept. 1926)

    [17] People v. Gravenhorst, 1942, 32 N.Y.S.2d 760.

    [18] Toher v. Crounse, 1908, 57 Misc. 252, 107 N.Y.S. 990, affirmed 127 App.Div. 934, 111 N.Y.S. 1147

    [19] Matter of Bull, 235 A.D.2d 722, 652 N.Y.S.2d 809, 1997 N.Y. Slip Op. 00317 (3d Dept.,1997)  (…a judgment of a trial court, although binding upon the parties to the litigation and entitled to preclusive effect if not appealed  will not receive stare decisis treatment by an appellate tribunal.)  Samuels v. High Braes Refuge, Inc., 8 A.D.3d 1110, 778 N.Y.S.2d 640, 2004 N.Y. Slip Op. 05082 (4th Dept., 2004).

     [20] Binimow, Precedential Effect of Unpublished Opinions, 2000 A.L.R.5th 17 (West Group).   See, Dubai Islamic Bank v. Citibank, N.A., 126 F.Supp.2d 659, 669 fn. 14 (S.D.N.Y.2000) (applying New York law).  
​

​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