Search:
Weekly Caselaw Updates

Sign up here to receive a weekly email with summaries of every precedential case out of the Third Circuit and the appellate courts in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. No fluff. No filler. No fee.

NJ courts inch their way into the future.

Matt

March 25, 2020

In Pathri v. Kakarlamath (bit.ly/36ozlDk), the New Jersey Appellate Division recognized that technological innovations might be useful in the state’s courtrooms.

.

The case, which involved a matrimonial action. In 2007, the parties moved to the U.S. from India. Plaintiff filed suit in 2018 and, soon thereafter, moved back to India. Defendant filed a counterclaim for a divorce.  She and the children live in Maryland. In May 2019, the trial court set the matter down for a trial to occur in June 2019. 

.

One week before the scheduled trial, the plaintiff filed a motion in limine, claiming that he was unable to obtain a visa to enter this country. Therefore, he requested to appear and testify at trial from India by contemporaneous video transmission. Finding such a procedure would inhibit her ability to assess plaintiff’s testimony and credibility, the trial court denied the motion. The Appellate Division granted an interlocutory appeal.

.

After reviewing the NJ rules, which provided little guidance on the issue, as well as the relevant caselaw, the Appellate Division held that judges should consider the following factors when determining if a witness’s testimony via contemporaneous video is warranted:

.

Imagine it–Coming soon to a courtroom in the Garden State: Trial via Skype or FaceTime.

Scroll down to read the court's full opinion
IF YOU HAVE ANY OF THESE

Heavy Workload

Heavy Workload

 Vacation

Vacation

 Other<br />Personal<br />Commitments

Other
Personal
Commitments

Hiring Attorney Contact Us
Sullivan Simon
Attorneys with 20+ years of litigation experience.

requests basic information
about case
Within 24 hours,

flat-fee quote

Delivers Final
Product
  • On Time
  • On Budget
  • Ready to File