The court case that I observed was “Matter of Marian T (Lauren R.)” From October 2020 . It was discussed/argued about the mental capacity of an adult adoptee on whether she was able to consent to her adoption. It was said that she had an intellectual disability and that 2 psychologist believed that she was incapable of making decisions on her adoption. The other party argued that the people she lived with, in their care it seemed as though she felt loved and happy.

Although it seemed as though the party who wanted the case dismissed was very aggressive during her argument, some of her points did not seem valid enough. She talked about the adoptee not being able to inherit assets and the judge strikes a valid point that she can inherit assets from her adoptive parents. Also, she claimed she wouldn’t get medical benefits, but I don’t see how it matters who her parents are in order to be medically taken care of. I believe the judges were very firm and asked valid questions to both parties. Also, I found it surprising that someone over 18 can get adopted.

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/ctapps/arguments/2020/Oct20/Video/49.html

The argument that I chose to review is The matter of New York civil liberties vs New York police department Council. The argument occurred on November 14th 2018. Essentially the argument is about how judges in the NYPD are interpreting laws that govern Police Officers. The New York City police department council are in favor of a foil request which essentially means that they’re okay with police information being public records. However they believe in certain circumstances there should be a redaction, meaning that they should be able to hide or move certain confidential parts of these texts. Arguments that the Civil Liberties made were that should they have to go in and decide for every case what is or isn’t acceptable to be released, and that this would be time consuming. Or Atleast that I what I got from the 30 minute long video.

What I found surprising/interesting was that there wasn’t already a law against releasing specific information. As I feel this would protect the victim in for example, sex crimes. I like how the lawyers and judges conducted theirselves, they were very respectful and apologized when they miscommunicated or left out crucial information. I found the judges more persuasive because I get no being able or having the power to wave this notion. However the Lawyers made good points too. I didn’t understand however, a lot of the terminology they used and the laws they referred to as they were only referred to by number. I found this important because it just shows how a lot of Law is about memorization and good memory is important to have in court.

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/ctapps/arguments/2020/Oct20/Video/49.html

So this case was heard in October of 2020.v. As per my understanding, this case revolves around the adoption of a lady named Marian and how her consent was required for adoption. According to the video, Marian didn’t have the capacity to consent whether she wants to be adopted or not because of her mental disabilities or she’s not capable of that. She was under the custody of New York State Mental Hygiene Legal Services and got the lawyer through court I think and it’s called ad litem. The court approved the adoption because Appellate division courts are allowed to do such things if a person is not capable of it, doesn’t matter if it’s a child or an adult. The Appellate Division correctly decided according to the statutes that were provided to express the statutory (legal written law) to dispense with Marian’s consent and that the court did not abuse its discretion when it said that she is “incapable” of taking her own decisions as per what I got. 

I actually second the Appellate Division court because in these situations courts are authorized to approve an adoption even without the consent ( grant permission or agreement of a person to do something) of a person of an adult adoptee. And discretion was not abused because as per what I understood, she’ll get every support an adoptee gets like she’ll be an heir of her adoptive family if she gets away from her biological family and that’s the law. I observed many things like the judge said that if a person is 18 or older and they are unable to consent or if they don’t have “capacity” for it, they can never get adopted. One more thing I observed is that the council (female) said that the state had gotten her custody by her own biological parents when she was a kid which was really shocking for me because I’ve never seen something like that. I was thinking that her parents might have died or something else would’ve had happened that’s why she got adopted. One thing that I really liked about the male council was how he mentioned that Marian is considered “not capable” of making decisions and didn’t even ask if she needed the attorney or if she wanted to appeal to the bigger court but she thinks she could’ve. I like how they both were convincing justices that her adopters or petitioners whatever you want to call them really have a deep emotional attachment with Marian and want her to be a member of their family and she wants the same. The court actually considered her best interests (related to financial and inherit I think) after it was proven by the female council as she kept mentioning best interests. She was saved and cared for in their house, and she was flourishing if I put it in simple words. And how it’s really good for her financially too. One thing that was confusing for me that at the beginning of the video, the council (female) said that Marian’s psychologists proved that she has been diagnosed with a profound intellectual disability her whole life. And the Surrogate court had all the expert opinions and documents that said that she has a lack of ability to provide consent but at the end of the video, she was saying how she’s going to lose a lot of services, distribution of assets, and cannot inherit from her biological family. Like what she meant by that?

This case is JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association v Caliguri. The month and year that this case was written is November 17, 2020. In the best way that I can understand this case is between a bank and a loan service. Based on my assumptions there was a form of miscommunication because apparently there was an open case prior. And because there was a case and it’s now close there some documents missing for this new case at hand and now the judges are trying to understand why they can’t have the original notes needed for this case and Mr Herzberg who is Caliguri’s lawyer is explaining how he was told that it wasn’t needed from the case prior but the judges are now trying to make him understand that it’s needed now because not only does he not have the original notes but it also seems like he doesn’t have any evidence to defend his case. And the judges are trying to make him understand that what happened in the case prior is not the same thing that will happen in this case because this is two different things.

What I found interesting is that as an attorney you should know that you will always need evidence and that it’s best that the sources and notes that you bring are original because it makes the case go smoother because the judges like to go straight to the point. The only thing that I wished is that the Judges gave Mr Herzberg the opportunity to speak  because you can never get the information that you need if you keep on cutting the person off while they speak. Not that i’m entirely agreeing with what Mr Herzberg did. I Liked Mr Schoenfeld’s presentation because he presented himself well and gave evidence at the spot.

Court of Appeals – Oral Argument Archive

Recording:

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/ctapps/arguments/2020/Jun20/Video/31.html

Tuesday, June 02, 2020 12:11

Based on this argument, the question being brought to the court is whether or not the actions taken against “Paul H. Sender”, due to his hostile words that were deemed “problematic”, when it comes to referring to someone inappropriately based on their gender, identification and so forth, were fair. It is argued that Mr. Senzer while he sent certain emails, which though he thought was private, decisions in this matter, did not necessarily reflect on his entire career as a judge. They confounded by arguing that Mr. Senzer, though his reasoning was weak, had no ill, or monetary, will, which is came to his comments. These arguments were continued based off of the positive aspects of the judge serving on the court. It’s overall argument is concluded by saying though the judge made these comments, he sincerely regrets them, and considers the council’s decision to remove him from the bench did not quite fit well in accordance to the basis of dismissal. On the other hand, those opposing the judge in discussion, argued that the words used, “reduced a woman, a female professional, which is a thing that is rarely done when talking to a male.” They continued to say that, “any language, over a period of time, that denigrates the court system as a whole, is problematic.” These individuals concluded by saying the occasional use of terms in question is not what’s being reflected in the case, but rather the use of these terms overtime by someone bestowed with these honorable duties, was wrong and the decision for removal was well warranted due to the knowledge that these comments were wrong, the overtime use of these languages, and inability to be sensitive and aware towards the individuals (victims) in question. Also, it argued that the judge, is able to commit such actions, could easily make decision that could be seen as a  reflection of all his colleagues as well, which is not what the courts stand for.

Personally for me, I found no surprise in this case. The reason for this is because I looked at this case from a straightforward perspective. A judge, someone aware of laws, that has provided over many cases overtime, is aware of the time and place of things, even with this knowledge, if they are able to still making certain derogatory comments, are well aware of their actions, and should be punished in accordance of regulations set in place. He is grown men and I cannot see how there is even a case in the given circumstance. I do also believe that the judges defense was very contradictory. How do you go to court to defend a client, but essentially also admits the the client is wrong, what he did was he did was not right, then continue saying he had a good history as a lawyer, so all should be forgotten!? That’s what’s wrong with this system, there’s too much expectations of leniency, and abuse of individuals, especially those that are knowledgeable about these things. I feel that the opposing side of the argument conducted themselves with more candor, posture and humanity. Meanwhile the judge defense was stuttering trying to find excuse and defend someone he know deep within was wrong, but still tried to find these excuses, making his argument sound weak and made up. Therefore, with all considered, I found against the judge, side was more persuasive. Throughout this argument, I did find some difficulties due to the use of language, but was able to piece together most of it. I am assuming due to their experience on the bench and elsewhere, results in the difference with how they communicate. All in all, while this is now something I found joy in reading due to the whole point of the case, I did find it very informative.

 First of all, as I start watching a court case. I quickly realized that whatever I saw in the movies like how The case get started in the court and How the lawyer present themselves. Furthermore, as I was watching it was very complicated. However, I tried my best to observe what happened in this case. Therefore as I observed that this case is about the adoption of intellectually disabled adult women. This case took place on Wednesday, October 14, 2020, in the New York state court of appeals. A woman who is disabled and she do not have the capacity and not capable of providing consent. According to the doctors she is considered As not able to give consent. Although petitioner could submit an application in the court for adaptation. 

I observed that they were talking own each other. Like they didn’t stop when one is speaking and then when the person is done then another person can speak. One thing that I find interesting is that if she can’t give her consent verbally then why can’t she give in the writing. In addition, there was no witness therefore I think there should be at least one witness. One thing that is not worthy is when the judge asked A question to a lawyer. Then a lawyer was unable to answer it. Why is that? The question was that the judge asked Wass to explain the operation of the legislature?