Yellow Book of N.Y., L.P. v Cataldo, 2011 NY Slip Op 00678 (2d Dept. 2011):
- Affiant could work for successor entity and lay a proper business record foundation for the documents.
“Additionally, Cataldo contends that the plaintiff’s documents should not have been admitted into evidence pursuant to the business records exception to the hearsay rule because the plaintiff’s witness was employed by the plaintiff’s successor-in-interest and because she lacked personal knowledge of the information contained in the documents. As the witness at issue was fully familiar with the plaintiff’s record-keeping procedures and practices, this contention is without merit (see CPLR 4518[a])”
- A representative to a party may not be kicked out of the courtroom –
“Cataldo’s contention that the Supreme Court erred in denying his request to exclude a witness from the courtroom is without merit. The record supports the Supreme Court’s determination that the witness at issue was employed by the plaintiff’s successor-in-interest and was, therefore, a party representative. As such, and in the absence of extenuating circumstances, the witness was entitled to remain in the courtroom throughout the trial (see Auger v State of New York, 263 AD2d 929, 932; Liquori v Barrow, 160 AD2d 843, 844; Carlisle v County of Nassau, 64 AD2d 15, 18). Further, Cataldo failed to establish that he suffered any prejudice due to the continued presence of the witness (see People v Scheck, 24 AD3d 574).”
– Thanks to DG for picking up on the “kicking out the witness” portion of the opinion.
2 Responses
They also tried to kick the witness out of the courtroom.
I do not know the circumstances but the law is strong on kicking a witness that will testify at some point in the trial out of the Court room. As this person is called a witness I presume they testified.
The witness cannot watch other witnesses testify in order to conform their testimony to the testimony of the other witnesses united in interest.
The exceptions are there for the Plaintiff and/or Defendant that is a person. When I represented the City I could have named police officers in the court room during the proceedings but not police officers that were not named even if they formed the nexus of the suit e.g. false arrest; excessive force; etc. That goes for all City employees.
Did this witness remain in the court room after they testified? Certainly not before or else something is wrong here.
I sure would have crossed the hell out of the witness:
Q. You find these proceedings to be very entertaining
Q. Its important for your company that you watch this
Q. They want to pay you to watch this — right
Q. No they want to pay you to match your story with the testimony of your companies witnesses
Q. The only reason that you watched this trial is so that you could take notes on what your witnesses said so that you could say the same thing.
Q. You did this to match your stories
Q. And that’s what they are — stories
Etc.