Attorney-at-Law

THE “CONVERSATION EASEMENT”?

In Uncategorized on 12/02/2021 at 10:58

See my blogpost “The Proofreader’s Reward,” 2/16/16, for a prelude to this aubade.

That irrepressible couple, Gregory J. Podlucky & Karla S. Podlucky, Docket No. 453-17, filed 12/2/21* (a plethora of palindromes this week), are back again. Notwithstanding Karla’s Van Cleef & Arpels custom-made baubles and Greg’s $4 million-plus in unpaid tax and chops (see my blogpost “The Woman in the Case,” 10/21/21), Greg & Karla plead poverty.

And big-hearted Judge Albert G (“Scholar Al”) Lauber bought their tale of destitution.

“On October 20, 2021, petitioners filed a motion requesting that the Court pay the cost of securing for them a transcript of the trial, alleging that they lacked the funds necessary to pay the cost. We granted that motion on October 29, 2021. The trial transcript, consisting of 457 pages, was posted to the docket record of this case on November 3, 2021.” Order, at p. 1.

While I’m usually genial at this season of anticipation, I note that, although “the Court” wrote the check, the US taxpayers, of whom I am one, paid the cost of the transcript. I’d like to see for myself just how broke Greg & Karla are.

OK, so what’s done is done. But that doesn’t stop Greg & Karla from going for it on fourth down.

“…petitioners filed a Motion for Audio of Trial Proceedings, requesting that the Court ‘pay the cost of the duplicating of the video and audio’ of the trial. As grounds therefor they note that the transcript (which they admit having received) includes instances where two speakers spoke concurrently, as indicated by brackets containing the words ‘indiscernible, simultaneous speech.’ Petitioners assert that the transcript for this reason ‘is not indicative of the trial proceedings,’ risking violation of their ‘Fifth Amendment right to due process.’ Order, at pp. 1-2.

Judge Scholar Al, courteous as always but finally out of patience, denies. In 457 (count ’em, 457, and Judge Scholar Al clearly has) pages, Judge Scholar Al finds “relatively few” instances where the reporter had to note talkovers, and those only for a line or two. None “detracts even slightly” from comprehensibility, Order, at p. 2.

So Judge Scholar Al gives counsel and petitioners a conversation easement: they can talk over each other, provided the meaning stays clear.

Anyway, if the transcript is unclear or erroneous, parties can move to correct, although Judge Scholar Al does not cite Rule 85(e). The Rules’ proclivity for motions seems to me excessive in this case. Our New York Civil Practice Law and Rule 3116(a) requires the deposed to note their objections and corrections in writing at the end of the transcript, and sign and return the same.

Much simpler.

*Gregory & Karla Podlucky, Docket No 453-17 12 2 21

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: