175 Misc. 2d 285 | N.Y. App. Term. | 1997
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
Judgment unanimously reversed, without costs, and matter remanded to the court below for a new trial.
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.