Case ID: misc2d_175/html/0285-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

[669 NYS2d 463]
    Velda Graves, Respondent, v American Express, Appellant.
    Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department,
    November 24, 1997
    APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
    
      Sedgwick, Detert, Moran & Arnold, New York City (Jack Gross and Paul Milberg of counsel), for appellant. Velda Graves, respondent pro se.
    
   OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

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

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

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

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