Treatment trajectory · 2002 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2002
2014
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 11 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. 158th Street & Riverside Drive Housing Co.
Co., 79 AD3d 864, 865 [2010]; People v DiSalvo, 284 AD2d 547, 548-549 [2001]).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. 158th Street & Riverside Drive Housing Co.
Co., 79 AD3d 864, 865 [2010]; People v DiSalvo, 284 AD2d 547, 548-549 [2001]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
One Step Up, Ltd. v. Webster Business Credit Corp.
Further, Henricks certified at the bottom of the Borrowing Base Certificate at issue that “the information set forth is true and complete.” This certification, along with Hen-ricks’s contemporaneous business duty to create the Borrowing Base Certificate, “gave the records in question sufficient indicia of reliability to qualify as business records” (Pencom Sys. v Shapiro, 237 AD2d 144, 144 [1997]; see also People v Cratsley, 86 NY2d 81, 88-91 [1995] [third-party psychologist’s report was a business record where report was prepared for program and state agency, in accordance with ag…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Devon S. v. Aundrea B.S.
Nor were the Southeast records created for use by Tangier (cf. People v Cratsley, 86 NY2d 81 [1995]; People v DiSalvo, 284 AD2d 547, 548 [2d Dept 2001]; Hefte v Bellin, 137 AD2d 406 [1st Dept 1988]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Carothers v. GEICO Indemnity Co.
Further, although a proper foundation can be established by a recipient of records who does not have personal knowledge of the maker’s business practices and procedures, there must still be a showing that the recipient either incorporated the records into its own records or relied upon the records in its day-to-day operations (see People v A & S DiSalvo Co., 284 AD2d 547, 548 [2001]; Plymouth Rock Fuel Corp. v Leucadia, Inc., 117 AD2d 727 [1986]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Carter v. Rivera
And so in Freeman v Kirkland ( 184 AD2d 331, 332 [1st Dept 1992]): “Nor did the trial court abuse its discretion in allowing into evidence [as business records] the complete medical file of plaintiffs treating osteopathic physician, including records, reports and correspondence generated by other medical specialists and laboratories, where the treating physician’s testimony at trial established that the medical records related to the diagnosis and treatment of plaintiffs injuries.” {See also Kuperman v Waller, 307 AD2d 810 [1st Dept 2003].) And in Cohn v Haddad ( 244 AD2d 519, 520 [1997]…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Corsi v. Town of Bedford
In addition, the 1995 aerial photograph, unlike the statements at issue in Hochhauser , was related to the County’s regular fulfillment of its governmental responsibilities (see People v DiSalvo, 284 AD2d 547, 548 [2001]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Switzer
Although the electronic records from which the fingerprint cards were generated were produced by the Monroe County Sheriffs Department rather than the RPD, the officer was familiar with the procedures used to generate the records, the RPD routinely relied upon those records, and the RPD had direct access to the computer data to obtain those records (see People v Cratsley, 86 NY2d 81, 90-91 [1995]; People v DiSalvo, 284 AD2d 547, 548-549 [2001]; People v Miller, 150 AD2d 910, 911 [1989], lv denied 74 NY2d 815 [1989]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Steward
We further note that, although the defendant laid the proper foundation for the admission into evidence of a supplemental police report as a business record (see CPLR 4518; People v DiSalvo, 284 AD2d 547, 548 [2001]), or a prior inconsistent statement of one of the two detectives who had the confidential informant under surveillance (see People v Duncan, 46 NY2d 74, 80 [1978], cert denied 442 US 910 [1979]), the trial court improperly refused to allow its admission into evidence.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Foster Diagnostic Imaging v. General Assurance Co.
(See People v Cratsley, 86 NY2d 81, 90-91 [1995]; People v DiSalvo, 284 AD2d 547, 548-549 [2d Dept 2001]; William Conover, Inc. v Waldorf, 251 AD2d 727, 728 [3d Dept 1998]; Pencom Sys. v Shapiro, 237 AD2d 144, 144 [1st Dept 1997]; Plymouth Rock Fuel Corp. v Leucadia, Inc., 117 AD2d 727, 728 [2d Dept 1986].) Courts have refused “business records” treatment, however, when the identity of the person providing the information is unknown.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In re Jonathan R.
The Family Court properly admitted the child’s case file into evidence as a business record (see CPLR 4518 [a]; Hefte v Bellin, 137 AD2d 406, 408 [1988]; see also People v DiSalvo, 284 AD2d 547, 548 [2001]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
Derrick Butler
v.
Derrick Butler
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jun 25, 2001.
Published
—Application by the appellant for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate, on the ground of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, a decision and order of this Court dated March 25, 1996 (People v Butler, 225 AD2d 788), affirming a judgment of the County Court, Orange County, rendered April 7, 1995.
Ordered that the application is denied.
The appellant has failed to establish that he was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel (see, Jones v Barnes, 463 US 745). O’Brien, J. P., Ritter, Altman, Schmidt and Adams, JJ., concur.