A criminal case recently decided by the Court of Appeals presented two questions, whether the Supreme Court acted within its authority when it permitted a witness unable to travel to New York to testify in a criminal trial via live two-way video, and whether such procedure violated the defendant’s constitutional right to confront witnesses against her. The Court answered those questions yes and no, respectively.
In a case arising under the Scaffold Law, the Court held that liability under Labor Law §240(1) does not require that a worker be injured by falling or being struck by a falling person or object, but only that the defendant failed to provide adequate protection from risk from a significant elevation differential. And in another case, the Court stated that the statutory safe harbor provisions of the Surrogate’s Court Procedure Act (SCPA) §1404 and the Estates, Powers and Trusts Law (EPTL) §3-3.5 are not exclusive.
Trial Testimony by Video
This content has been archived.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
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
