Court of Claims won’t delay remote trial

The New York State Court of Claims has denied a request from the state Attorney General’s Office to delay a remotely-held trial, claiming that it will be difficult to judge the credibility of witnesses when viewed on a small screen.

The plaintiff, Luis Bonilla, is seeking damages from the state for an alleged wrongful conviction. A trial has been scheduled for May 20.

In December, the Attorney General’s office wrote a letter to Judge David A. Weinstein stating their opposition to a virtual trial.

The letter noted that there were technological difficulties when Bonilla was deposed remotely on Dec. 3.

“Bonilla, who testified through a Spanish interpreter, participated in the deposition from his daughter’s house, and the link was compromised every time she received a phone call,” according to the letter.

“This is an unjust conviction case in which claimant’s credibility is the key to the case,” they wrote.

During a virtual trial, when the court monitor is showing an exhibit, Bonilla’s face will be reduced to a small tile.

“Defendant maintains that this set-up is not ideal for assessing the claimant’s credibility, or his reaction to the videotape,” according to the letter.

“The pandemic has presented courts with a Hobson’s Choice between exposing the public and bar to a deadly and highly contagious disease through conducting in-person trials on the one hand, and greatly delaying access to the courts on the other,” Weinstein wrote.

“Virtual proceedings have presented a way out of this dilemma, allowing the legal process to move forward without endangering the health of the participants. This has been significantly true in the Court of Claims, which has successfully conducted tens of virtual trials,” he wrote.

The Attorney General’s suggestion that they could “simply wait out the pandemic, and conduct an in-person proceeding at whatever point it might be safe to do so … is no alternative at all,” Weinstein wrote.

“No one can say with any assurance when in-court proceedings will again be possible,” he wrote. “The Court cannot simply push off the trial indefinitely, on the understanding that at some unknown point in the future, the claimant will have his day in court.”

“In essence, defendant suggests that to avoid the possible delay of minutes or even hours that can result from technical problems, the Court should impose the certainty of delaying the entire proceeding for many months. I can think of no reason why the latter alternative is preferable,” Weinstein wrote.

“From my own experience — and the observations of other judges in various opinions on the subject — improvements in video technology now facilitate transmission of virtual images that are clear and close up, and allow for sufficient consideration of a witness’s demeanor,” Weinstein wrote.

[email protected] / (585) 232-2035