N.Y. Laws » CHAPTER Judiciary / ARTICLE Stenographers
New York Consolidated Laws

N.Y. Judiciary Law § 295 (2026)

Complete stenographic notes to be taken

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NY-LEGnysenate.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar 
§ 295. Complete stenographic notes to be taken. Each stenographer
specified in this chapter or the civil practice act, surrogate's court
act, court of claims act or New York city civil court act must take full
stenographic notes of the testimony and of all other proceedings in each
cause tried or heard. Such stenographer shall take complete stenographic
notes of each ruling or decision of the presiding judge, and when the
trial is by jury each and every remark or comment of such judge during
the trial, when requested so to do by either party, together with each
and every exception taken to any such ruling, decision, remark or
comment by or on behalf of any party to the action.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 31 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1986–2023 · leading case: Charles Jones v. Dennis Vacco, Attorney Gen. of the State of New York, 126 F.3d 408 (2d Cir. 1997).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Charles Jones v. Dennis Vacco, Attorney Gen. of the State of New York, 126 F.3d 408 (2d Cir. 1997). “The record is devoid of any discussion of the court’s previously issued overnight ban on consultation and whether it would continue over the weekend.”
The People v. Glenn S. Smith & The People v. Norman E. Ramsey, 57 N.E.3d 48 (NY 2016). “Read in conjunction with the provisions of the Judiciary Law, defining court stenographer and setting forth the function of that office, the statute contemplates that an officer of the court has taken full and complete stenographic notes of the proceedings (see Judiciary Law §…”
People v. Koufomichalis, 2 A.D.3d 987 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003). · cites it 2× “Judiciary Law § 295 “requires that full stenographic notes be taken of all trial proceedings and, on request of counsel during a jury trial, ‘each and every remark or comment of [the] judge .”
People v. Richard, 30 A.D.3d 750 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006). “Assuming, without deciding, that the stenographer was required pursuant to Judiciary Law § 295 to transcribe the precharge conference, defendant failed to show any prejudice he suffered as a result of that conference not being transcribed (see People v Garey, 243 AD2d 844, 845…”
People v. Harrison, 652 N.E.2d 638 (NY 1995). “” It is obvious from these facts that the trial court erred by foreclosing defendant from exercising his right to obtain a stenographic record of voir dire as Judiciary Law § 295 requires. The question then is whether that error can be cured by a reconstruction proceeding.”
People v. Vasquez, 678 N.E.2d 482 (NY 1997). “Finally, in the absence of any objection to the trial court’s failure to stenographically record the jury voir dire, defendant’s Vasquez’s contention that reversal is required under Judiciary Law § 295 is not preserved for our review (CPL 470.”
People v. Faulkner, 36 A.D.3d 951 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007). “Cordero v Lalor 522 US 846 [1997]; People v Rick, 224 AD2d 790, 790 [1996], lv denied 88 NY2d 852 [1996]; see also Judiciary Law § 295; People v Harrison, 85 NY2d 794, 796 [1995]).”
People v. Jenkins, 90 A.D.3d 1326 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011). “at 796; see People v Asencia, 280 AD2d 678, 678-679 [2001]; People v Lane, 241 AD2d 763, 763 [1997], lv denied 91 NY2d 875 [1997]) — notwithstanding the seemingly absolute dictates of Judiciary Law § 295. “Rather, a defendant must show that a request was made that the voir dire…”
People v. Wanass, 55 Misc. 3d 97 (N.Y. App. Term. 2017). “The underlying appeal is from a judgment rendered in the Criminal Court of the City of New York, which is a court of record (see NY Const, art VI, § 1 [b]; Judiciary Law § 2 [12]; see *99 also NY City Crim Ct Act § 20).”
Garson v. Perlman, 541 F. Supp. 2d 515 (E.D.N.Y 2008). “April 19, 2007) (federal habeas not available to assert violation of NY. Jud. L. § 295, which requires verbatim transcript of proceedings); McCullough v.”
People v. Clark, 142 A.D.3d 1339 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016). “ndant did not object to the charge conference being held off the record in chambers, his contention that the court erred in failing to record the charge conference stenographically is not preserved for our review (see People v Vasquez, 89 NY2d 521, 534 [1997], cert denied 522 US…”
In re Simone D., 32 A.D.3d 931 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006). “Third, the details of the knowledge possessed by the court are not memorialized in the transcript, thus depriving all appellate courts of the ability to review the entire record and evaluate whether the petitioner has sustained its burden, in this case, by clear and convincing…”
Show all 31 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.