Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Marsha ZIMBLER, etc., et al., Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. RESNICK 72ND STREET ASSOCIATES, etc., et al., Defendants, The Board Managers of the Oxford on Seventy Second, et al., Defendants-Appellants.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Milton A. Tingling, J.), entered October 9, 2008, which denied the motion of defendants The Board Managers of the Oxford on Seventy Second and Brown Harris Stevens Residential Management, LLC, to preclude the presence of a stenographer or other recorder at the court-ordered psychological evaluation of the minor plaintiff to the extent of directing plaintiffs to arrange for the stenographer not to be present in the examination room, unanimously modified, on the facts, to direct that, if it is not feasible to station the stenographer outside the examination room so as not to be visible to anyone in the room and not to interfere with the proper conduct of the examination, then the stenographer's audio recording device may be placed, concealed, in the examining room during the evaluation and the recording transcribed later, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.
On the record presented, the motion court properly permitted plaintiffs to record the psychological examination of the infant plaintiff, provided that the stenographer is not present in the examination room (see Barraza v. 55 W. 47th St. Co., 156 A.D.2d 271, 548 N.Y.S.2d 660 [1989]; Milam v. Mitchell, 51 Misc.2d 948, 950, 274 N.Y.S.2d 326 [1966] ). Defendants have not shown that the presence of a stenographer outside the room will unduly interfere with the examination.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: March 24, 2009
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)