Case Name: Velda Graves, Respondent, v. American Express, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1997-11-24
Citations: 175 Misc. 2d 285
Docket Number: 
Parties: Velda Graves, Respondent, v American Express, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 175
Pages: 285–286

Head Matter:
[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:
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.