2025 NY Slip Op 25092
N.Y. Fam. Ct., Kings Cty.2025Background
- The case involves a termination of parental rights (TPR) trial in Family Court, Kings County regarding the child Davin P.
- At trial, the petitioner (SCO Family Services) called one of the respondents (Ishmael P.) as a witness and was permitted to ask leading questions due to the adverse party exception.
- During testimony, respondent's counsel began questioning her own client using a leading question, which was objected to by petitioner, prompting the court to reserve decision.
- The court ordered briefing on whether respondent’s lawyer may use leading questions when cross-examining their own client under such circumstances.
- Petitioner submitted a brief supporting their position; no other party submitted briefs.
- The key dispute is the procedural conduct permitted during the cross-examination of a party who was called as an adverse witness by the opposition.
Issues
| Issue | Petitioner's Argument | Respondent's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May a respondent's counsel ask leading questions of their client when cross-examining after adverse direct examination? | Only the calling party (petitioner) can use leading questions for adverse parties. | Implicitly, respondent’s counsel sought to use leading questions as it was technically cross-examination. | No; respondent’s own lawyer may not use leading questions, even on cross-examination. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ferri v. Ferri, 60 AD3d 625 (2d Dep't 2009) (direct examination of an adverse party can include leading questions at the court's discretion)