9.29 - 2. Specificity

• Jurisdiction: New York

2. Specificity

A common law rule requires that objections to questions be made known in order to save certain rights and be asserted as to specify the grounds upon which the objections are based.²¹⁴² A party’s general objections during the trial may fail to alert the trial court to the particular issue and, thus, the issue will not be preserved for appellate review.²¹⁴³

When a trial judge overrules a general objection, “all grounds of objection which might have been obviated, if they had been specifically stated,” will be deemed waived on appeal.²¹⁴⁴ If the court overrules a general objection, “the objecting attorney should promptly revise the objection to specifically state all pertinent grounds.”²¹⁴⁵ Therefore, as a general practice, you should object with specificity. But specific objections are not foolproof, as they will be unavailing if predicated upon the wrong ground.

The specificity of an objection is crucial to preserve an error of constitutional dimensions for the N.Y. Court of Appeals to review. Generally, the Court has no power to review a constitutional issue if the objecting party did not raise it in the courts below.²¹⁴⁶ This rule of specificity also applies in the administrative context.²¹⁴⁷

At an administrative hearing in Gonzalez v. State Liquor Authority,²¹⁴⁸ for example, the hearing officer received into evidence, over the petitioner’s general objection, a gambling slip. Relying on that evidence, the hearing officer concluded that the petitioner knew or should have known that gambling occurred on her licensed premises and thus ordered the cancellation of the petitioner’s liquor license. Shortly thereafter, a criminal court suppressed the gambling evidence at a hearing relating to the gambling charges against the petitioner and her employee.

The Appellate Division annulled the State Liquor Authority’s determination, holding that the...