unreasonable requirement in New York

1986The rule that each person who had access to or possession of the evidence should ordinarily be called to testify may be relaxed "where the circumstances provide reasonable assurances of identity and unchanged condition and it would be impossible or an unreasonable requirement to produce each physical custodian as a witness” (see, People v Porter, 46 AD2d 307, 311 ).

1977Thus, "where the circumstances provide reasonable assurances of identity and unchanged condition and it would be impossible or an unreasonable requirement to produce each physical custodian as a witness, there has been a relaxation of the rule” (People v Porter; 46 AD2d 307, 311 ; see, also, People v Jamison, 29 AD2d 973 ).

1996Corp., 51 NY2d 308 , rearg denied 52 NY2d 784 ).

1996Corp., 51 NY2d 308 , rearg denied 52 NY2d 784 ).

1993A construction of a statute which leads to such unreasonable result should be avoided (see, New York State Bankers Assn. v Albright, 38 NY2d 430, 436-437 ; McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 1, Statutes § 143, and § 111, at 226 [to the effect that "the literal meanings of words are not to be adhered to or suffered to defeat the general purpose and manifest policy intended to be promoted”]).

1974However where the circumstances provide reasonable assurances of identity and unchanged condition and it would be impossible or an unreasonable requirement to produce each physical custodian as a witness, there has been a relaxation of the rule (cf. People v. Jamison, 29 A D 2d 973 [postal employees who handled mailed narcotics not called] and People v. Goedkoop, 26 Misc 2d 785 , with People v. Turcsik, 43 AD 2d 777 , app. dsmd. 34 N Y 2d 985).

1974However where the circumstances provide reasonable assurances of identity and unchanged condition and it would be impossible or an unreasonable requirement to produce each physical custodian as a witness, there has been a relaxation of the rule (cf. People v. Jamison, 29 A D 2d 973 [postal employees who handled mailed narcotics not called] and People v. Goedkoop, 26 Misc 2d 785 , with People v. Turcsik, 43 AD 2d 777 , app. dsmd. 34 N Y 2d 985).

1940(Fitch v. Central New York Telephone Co., 42 App. Div. 321 ; Ensign v. Central New York Telephone Co., 79 id. 244; affd., 179 N. Y. 539 .) In McAuley v. United Cigar Stores Co. of America, Inc. ( 204 App. Div. 356 ; affd., 236 N. Y. 633 ) it was stated in the opinion in the lower court concerning an icy sidewalk, “ If the storm had ceased entirely at five o’clock in the afternoon, not sufficient time elapsed between that time, when outdoor labor customarily ceases work for the day, and between ten and eleven o’clock the same evening, to charge negligence in failing to clear off snow and ice, e

1940(Fitch v. Central New York Telephone Co., 42 App. Div. 321 ; Ensign v. Central New York Telephone Co., 79 id. 244; affd., 179 N. Y. 539 .) In McAuley v. United Cigar Stores Co. of America, Inc. ( 204 App. Div. 356 ; affd., 236 N. Y. 633 ) it was stated in the opinion in the lower court concerning an icy sidewalk, “ If the storm had ceased entirely at five o’clock in the afternoon, not sufficient time elapsed between that time, when outdoor labor customarily ceases work for the day, and between ten and eleven o’clock the same evening, to charge negligence in failing to clear off snow and ice, e

1940(Fitch v. Central New York Telephone Co., 42 App. Div. 321 ; Ensign v. Central New York Telephone Co., 79 id. 244; affd., 179 N. Y. 539 .) In McAuley v. United Cigar Stores Co. of America, Inc. ( 204 App. Div. 356 ; affd., 236 N. Y. 633 ) it was stated in the opinion in the lower court concerning an icy sidewalk, “ If the storm had ceased entirely at five o’clock in the afternoon, not sufficient time elapsed between that time, when outdoor labor customarily ceases work for the day, and between ten and eleven o’clock the same evening, to charge negligence in failing to clear off snow and ice, e

1940(Fitch v. Central New York Telephone Co., 42 App. Div. 321 ; Ensign v. Central New York Telephone Co., 79 id. 244; affd., 179 N. Y. 539 .) In McAuley v. United Cigar Stores Co. of America, Inc. ( 204 App. Div. 356 ; affd., 236 N. Y. 633 ) it was stated in the opinion in the lower court concerning an icy sidewalk, “ If the storm had ceased entirely at five o’clock in the afternoon, not sufficient time elapsed between that time, when outdoor labor customarily ceases work for the day, and between ten and eleven o’clock the same evening, to charge negligence in failing to clear off snow and ice, e

1900Reynolds v. Common Council. 140 N. Y. 300 .) It is not necessary to assert here that the section of the charter referred' to, even as interpreted by the learned counsel for the defendant, enacts an unreasonable rule of evidence, or that it repeals an old one upon which the enforcement of the contract depends.

1897As was stated by the court of appeals in the case of People v. Havnor, 149 N. Y. 201 , 43 N. E. 541 : “ When thus exercised, even if the effect is to interfere to some extent with the use of the property or the prosecution of a lawful pursuit, it is'not regarded as an appropriation of the property, or an encroachment upon liberty, because the preservation of order and the promotion of the general welfare, so essential to organized society, of necessity involve some sacrifice of natural rights. ” I thing the legislature liad the power to say that a person: who had been convicted of a felony did

1892Thomas v. Fleury, 26 N. Y. 26 ; 15 Am. & Eng.