Fed Rules Evid rule in New York

2021Second, the court must determine that the probative value in helping the jury evaluate the [expert's] opinion substantially outweighs [its] prejudicial effect ( cf. Fed Rules Evid rule 703)" ( Matter of State of New York v Floyd Y. , 22 NY3d 95, 109 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of State of New York v Charada T. , 23 NY3d 355 ; Matter of State of New York v John S. , 23 NY3d 326 ).

2014These reliability and substantial relevance requirements provide a necessary counterweight to the deference juries may accord hearsay evidence simply because an expert has propounded it” (Matter of State of New York v Floyd Y., 22 NY3d at 109 ; see Matter of State of New York v Charada T., 23 NY3d 355 [2014]; Matter of State of New York v John S., 23 NY3d 326 [2014]).

2012In any event, at an administrative hearing, the ALJ need not observe the rules of evidence observed by courts (see Matter of Anthony Grace & Sons v New York State Dept. of Motor Vehs., 266 AD2d 284, 285 [1999]).

2012In any event, at an administrative hearing, the ALJ need not observe the rules of evidence observed by courts (see Matter of Anthony Grace & Sons v New York State Dept. of Motor Vehs., 266 AD2d 284, 285 [1999]).

2021Here, the State established the reliability of the hearsay basis evidence since the appellant was adjudicated guilty of stalking and threatening violent conduct toward the mental health counselor after a disciplinary hearing ( see Matter of State of New York v Floyd Y. , 22 NY3d at 110 ).

2021Second, the court must determine that the probative value in helping the jury evaluate the [expert's] opinion substantially outweighs [its] prejudicial effect ( cf. Fed Rules Evid rule 703)" ( Matter of State of New York v Floyd Y. , 22 NY3d 95, 109 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of State of New York v Charada T. , 23 NY3d 355 ; Matter of State of New York v John S. , 23 NY3d 326 ).

2010Fed Rules Evid rule 702; see also Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 US 579 (1993). .

2006The Wesley court stated that the Frye standard and not the judicial gatekeeping standard set forth in Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ( 509 US 579 [1993] [based on Fed Rules Evid rule 702]) is the test to be applied in New York State courts.

2019However, "[a]ll other circumstances of the making of the memorandum or record, including lack of personal knowledge by the maker, may be proved to affect its weight, but they shall not affect its admissibility" ( id .; see People v Kangas , 28 NY3d 984, 985-986 ; cf. Fed Rules Evid rule 803[6]).

2013The Court of Appeals has “declined to prescribe fixed rules prohibiting or allowing the use for credibility purposes of prior offenses based solely upon the potentially inflammatory impact of the crime or the victim involved, even in the sensitive area of sex offenses.” (See People v Bennette, 56 NY2d 142, 147 [1982].) In People v Bennette, the defendant had been convicted of a sex offense involving a child who was eight years old.

2011First, Swiss Post Solutions’ unilateral stipulation that Swiss Post Solutions was plaintiffs sole employer does not bind plaintiff, because she in no way “manifested an adoption or belief in its truth.” (Addo v Melnick, 61 AD3d 453, 454 [1st Dept 2009], quoting Fed Rules Evid rule 801 [d] [2] [B].) While plaintiffs unilateral confidentiality agreement does acknowledge that Swiss Post Solutions employed plaintiff, she does not unambiguously acknowledge that it solely employed her.

2010See Mogg v State, 918 NE2d 750 (Ind Ct App 2009); Lemler, 774 NW2d at 272 .

2008The People in both appeals before us ask us to adopt an absolute rule, discussed in Crawford , that all business records “by their nature [are] not testimonial” (Crawford, 541 US at 56 ) . 8 Under our rules of evidence, however—unlike the federal rules (see Fed Rules Evid rule 803 [6], [8])—“law enforcement agencies constitute businesses for purposes of the rule” (People v Guidice, 83 NY2d 630, 635 [1994] [citation and internal quotation marks omitted]). 9 Accordingly, a bright line rule could run afoul of either our Federal or State Constitutions, and most es pecially in certain types of poli

2008The People in both appeals before us ask us to adopt an absolute rule, discussed in Crawford , that all business records “by their nature [are] not testimonial” (Crawford, 541 US at 56 ) . 8 Under our rules of evidence, however—unlike the federal rules (see Fed Rules Evid rule 803 [6], [8])—“law enforcement agencies constitute businesses for purposes of the rule” (People v Guidice, 83 NY2d 630, 635 [1994] [citation and internal quotation marks omitted]). 9 Accordingly, a bright line rule could run afoul of either our Federal or State Constitutions, and most es pecially in certain types of poli

2008The People in both appeals before us ask us to adopt an absolute rule, discussed in Crawford , that all business records “by their nature [are] not testimonial” (Crawford, 541 US at 56 ) . 8 Under our rules of evidence, however—unlike the federal rules (see Fed Rules Evid rule 803 [6], [8])—“law enforcement agencies constitute businesses for purposes of the rule” (People v Guidice, 83 NY2d 630, 635 [1994] [citation and internal quotation marks omitted]). 9 Accordingly, a bright line rule could run afoul of either our Federal or State Constitutions, and most es pecially in certain types of poli

2008The People in both appeals before us ask us to adopt an absolute rule, discussed in Crawford , that all business records "by their nature [are] not testimonial" ( Crawford, 541 US at 56 ). [8] Under our rules of evidence, however — unlike the federal rules ( see Fed Rules Evid rule 803 [6], [8]) — "law enforcement agencies constitute businesses for purposes of the rule" ( People v Guidice, 83 NY2d 630, 635 [1994] [citation and internal quotation marks omitted]). [9] Accordingly, a bright line rule could run afoul of either our Federal or State Constitutions, and most especially *150 in certain

2006While the People also seek to invoke the “[r]esidual [exception” to the hearsay rule (see Fed Rules Evid rule 807), we note that no such exception exists under New York law (see People v Nieves, 67 NY2d 125, 131 [1986]; see also 33 NY Jur 2d, Criminal Law § 1910).

2005Sufficient Independent Indicia of Reliability In Cramer v Kuhns ( 213 AD2d 131, 136 [3d Dept 1995]), the Court held that a hearsay document could be admitted as a public record under CPLR 4520 only if it has “sufficient independent indicia of reliability to justify its admission.” The Court examined the federal counterpart to CPLR 4520 (Fed Rules Evid rule 803 [8] [C]) to aid its determination as to whether a study published by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration was admissible.