NY Court of Appeals Expected to Hear In-Person Arguments Once Again
Arguments will be webcast live and the courtroom will be closed to the general public, according to a notice.
May 27, 2020 at 05:19 PM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on New York Law Journal
New York's top court is expected hear in-person arguments on a case June 2, a move that comes after the Capital Region met COVID-19 reopening benchmarks outlined by state officials, according to a court spokesman.
Arguments in four cases are scheduled to be heard June 2, but only one of those cases is expected to be heard in person, said Court of Appeals spokesman Gary Spencer on Wednesday. The other three cases are expected to hold arguments remotely, he said.
The justices will be in a spaced-out seating arrangement June 2, similar to how the state's high court held arguments back in March, Spencer said.
Arguments will be webcast live and the courtroom will be closed to the general public, according to a notice from John Asiello, chief clerk and legal counsel to the court. The document says there will be "appropriate safety protocols" during the June 2020 session.
Earlier this month, state officials gave the Capital Region, which includes the cities of Albany and Troy, approval to reopen parts of its economy following coronavirus-triggered lockdown measures. In part, those benchmarks say that regions must see a continued downturn, or a low number, of hospital deaths or new hospitalizations.
Steven Mintz, a founding partner and general counsel of Mintz & Gold, described oral arguments as critical at the Court of Appeals, saying it can give nuance to points that get lost in written briefs.
Communications signals, like body language and speech intonation, can influence how a point is received, he said. But in court proceedings conducted by telephone or video, those subtleties can be lost, he said.
Stephen P. Younger, a partner at Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler, said video court proceedings can make it more difficult to determine the right time to start talking and make it harder to pick up on subtle nuances such as jokes and rhetorical questions.
The case set to be heard in person, captioned Matter of Senzer, involves a review of a determination from the state's Commission on Judicial Conduct.
In that case, the commission in October 2019 recommended that Northport Village Justice Paul Senzer be removed from the bench. According to the commission's determination, he was found to have, in emails, used several derogatory terms to refer to individuals in a visitation matter that he was involved in as an attorney in Family Court.
Lawyers for Senzer in November requested review of that determination by the Court of Appeals.
READ MORE:
Claimants Against Cities Can't View Each Other's Testimony in Prefiling Hearings, NY Court of Appeals Says
New York Court of Appeals Hears In-Person Arguments, Observing Social Distancing
Long Island Judge Recommended for Removal From Office After Emailing Slurs, Vulgar Language to Clients
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllSouth Carolina Physicians Challenge Abortion Ban Under Religious Freedom Claims
7th Circ. Revives Transactional Dispute Against Military Retailer, Sends to State Court
4 minute readDOJ, 10 State AGs File Amended Antitrust Complaint Against RealPage and Big Landlords
4 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Exploring the Opportunities and Risks for Generative AI and Corporate Databases: An Introduction
- 2Farella Elevates First Female Firmwide Managing Partners
- 3Family Court 2024 Roundup: Part I
- 4In-House Lawyers Are Focused on Employment and Cybersecurity Disputes, But Looking Out for Conflict Over AI
- 5A Simple 'Trial Lawyer' Goes to the Supreme Court
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250