small claim-answering machine tape

What is the name of your state? ny

i am taking a girl to court for not paying me for babysitting survice. i just got a notice saying she is countersueing me for lost tax money due to refusal to supply tax info. she never called me and asked for it and i didn't have her new address. she says she has a tape of me saying i wouldn't give it to her. i had called and left a message saying i had her tax info and that she could come by and sign for it and bring my payment. can she bring the tape to court as evidence?

Well color me calico and call me Tigger

honeybee5969 said:

What is the name of your state? ny

i am taking a girl to court for not paying me for babysitting survice. i just got a notice saying she is countersueing me for lost tax money due to refusal to supply tax info. she never called me and asked for it and i didn't have her new address. she says she has a tape of me saying i wouldn't give it to her. i had called and left a message saying i had her tax info and that she could come by and sign for it and bring my payment. can she bring the tape to court as evidence?

Click to expand...

I can feel your pain person poster. I had left a couple of hundred of messages on my mailman's message machine. ( do not ask how I got his number, his wallet just happened to fall out of his pocket while he was bending over to pick up my wig.)

And now, FINALLY, I have an official looking envelope from the Mayor of my town.

I am afraid to open it. It was not sent certified, so I put some cat nip on it and I am going to put it in the living room among my fifty-four cats. I do not think there will be any evidence left.

Do you baby-sit Kitty-cats? Most of my babies are really good but Kimba and Tiger are a little much to handle after the cat-nip trips and I have to go and find the address where Mr. Mailman lives and Stake it out and find out if there is a Mrs. Mailman. If there is I will give up the chase. I don't like married fellows. And I think the UPS man who is delivering a lot of packages to the were-wolves who live downstairs is cute in his shorts.


I did not see a ring!

Here kittie Kittie Kitties... Here is some Cat-letter for you!

1. Without your consent in advance, taping you isn't legal in NY:
N.Y. Penal Law §§ 250.00, 250.05: It is a Class E felony to overhear or record a telephonic or telegraphic communication if one is not the sender or receiver, or does not have the consent of either the sender or receiver. It also is a crime for someone not present to overhear or record any conversation or discussion without the consent of at least one party to that conversation.

2. Unless she brings her own machine, she'll never get the chance. The court won't provide one. If she hauls one out, then raise your statutory objection (if the Court doesn't do it for you.)

thank you. i didn't think she could use it. i wouldn't put it past her to change it to what she wants somehow.

dcatz said:

1. Without your consent in advance, taping you isn't legal in NY:
N.Y. Penal Law §§ 250.00, 250.05: It is a Class E felony to overhear or record a telephonic or telegraphic communication if one is not the sender or receiver, or does not have the consent of either the sender or receiver. It also is a crime for someone not present to overhear or record any conversation or discussion without the consent of at least one party to that conversation.

2. Unless she brings her own machine, she'll never get the chance. The court won't provide one. If she hauls one out, then raise your statutory objection (if the Court doesn't do it for you.)

Click to expand...

This kids, is why it is important to read the statutes carefully.

It is only illegal if "one is not the sender or receiver" or "does not have the consent of the sender or receiver." Guess what, the other party is the receiver. It does not require the consent of the sender AND receiver. It is the sender OR receiver.

In this case, it is perfectly legal for the receiver (the other party to the lawsuit), to use the tape.

Moreover, consent here will be implied. Because the OP knew she was leaving a message. A message is, by its very nature, recorded. That is implied, if not express consent.

badapple40 said:

This kids, is why it is important to read the statutes carefully.

It is only illegal if "one is not the sender or receiver" or "does not have the consent of the sender or receiver." Guess what, the other party is the receiver. It does not require the consent of the sender AND receiver. It is the sender OR receiver.

In this case, it is perfectly legal for the receiver (the other party to the lawsuit), to use the tape.

Moreover, consent here will be implied. Because the OP knew she was leaving a message. A message is, by its very nature, recorded. That is implied, if not express consent.

Click to expand...

Hmmm this is very good to know, thank you!

I want to offer a mea culpa.

On reflection, I agree with badapple that the tape could be used, but not because she was the receiver and the requirement is "receiver OR sender". I don't read the statute to say that she could make a recording of your conversation without your consent, if you were in direct communications and simply because she was the receiver. Perhaps we're still viewing the statute differently on that point.

However, I gave insufficient weight to to the fact you left some message, although different from the one that you say that you left. I do agree that implied consent could be found in that.

Whether it gets in is still an open question for me, because of the mechanics os Small Claims Court. If it does get heard, it's also an open question for me of the weight given to the recording, if you deny that the one played is the one that you left.