Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
10 New York opinions name it 2 courts 1970–2020 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New York courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
The People v. Victor Sotogreen1 sentence2018Furthermore, plaintiff's [*2]statement to the foreman does not fall within the declaration against interest exception because plaintiff was available to, and did, testify as a witness; there is no evidence that plaintiff knew the statement was adverse to his interests when it was made; and the supporting circumstances do not attest to its trustworthiness or reliability ( see People v Soto , 26 NY3d 455, 460-461 [2015]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Settlesgreen2 sentences2015A statement qualifies as a declaration against interest if four elements are met: (1) the declarant is unavailable to testify as a witness; (2) when the statement was made, the declarant was aware that it was adverse to his or her penal interest; (3) the declarant has competent knowledge of the facts underlying the statement; and (4) supporting circumstances independent of the statement itself attest to its trustworthiness and reliability (People v Settles, 46 NY2d at 167). 2015A statement qualifies as a declaration against interest if four elements are met: (1) the declarant is unavailable to testify as a witness; (2) when the statement was made, the declarant was aware that it was adverse to his or her penal interest; (3) the declarant has competent knowledge of the facts underlying the statement; and (4) supporting circumstances independent of the statement itself attest to its trustworthiness and reliability (People v Settles, 46 NY2d at 167 ). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Brensicgreen2 sentences2015The declaration-against-interest exception to the hearsay rule “flows from the fact that a person ordinarily does not reveal facts that are contrary to his own interest” unless those facts are true (Maerling, 46 NY2d at 295 ; People v Brensic, 70 NY2d 9, 14 [1987]). 2015The declaration-against-interest exception to the hearsay rule "flows from the fact that a person ordinarily does - 6 - - 7 - No. 206 not reveal facts that are contrary to his own interest" unless those facts are true (Maerling, 46 NY2d at 295 ; People v Brensic, 70 NY2d 9, 14 [1987]). | 1 | 1 |
Nucci v. Propergreen1 sentence2008Contrary to the defendants’ contentions, the content of the Edwards affidavit is admissible under the declaration against interest exception to the hearsay rule (see Nucci v Proper, 95 NY2d 597, 602 [2001]) and, upon admission, the plaintiffs evidence overall is subject to the lesser standard of proof afforded under the doctrine enunciated in Noseworthy v City of New York ( 298 NY 76, 80 [1948]). | 1 | 1 |
Noseworthy v. City of New Yorkgreen1 sentence2008Contrary to the defendants’ contentions, the content of the Edwards affidavit is admissible under the declaration against interest exception to the hearsay rule (see Nucci v Proper, 95 NY2d 597, 602 [2001]) and, upon admission, the plaintiffs evidence overall is subject to the lesser standard of proof afforded under the doctrine enunciated in Noseworthy v City of New York ( 298 NY 76, 80 [1948]). | 1 | 1 |
Chainani v. Board of Educationgreen1 sentence2008Furthermore, as to the independent contractor defense, the facts alleged in the Edwards’ affidavit raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendants exercised any control over the means and methods of the work performed (see Chainani v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 87 NY2d 370, 380-381 [1995]; Willis v City of New York, 266 AD2d 208, 208-209 [1999]; Melbourne v New York Life Ins. | 1 | 1 |
Willis v. City of New Yorkgreen1 sentence2008Furthermore, as to the independent contractor defense, the facts alleged in the Edwards’ affidavit raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendants exercised any control over the means and methods of the work performed (see Chainani v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 87 NY2d 370, 380-381 [1995]; Willis v City of New York, 266 AD2d 208, 208-209 [1999]; Melbourne v New York Life Ins. | 1 | 1 |
Tompkins v. . Fonda Glove Lining Co.green2 sentences2003The declaration against interest exception applies if the proponent establishes, among other things, that the declaration was against the declarant’s interest when made (see Tompkins v Fonda Glove Lining Co., 188 NY 261, 264 [1907]; Kelleher v F.M.E. 2003The declaration against interest exception applies if the proponent establishes, among other things, that the declaration was against the declarant’s interest when made (see Tompkins v Fonda Glove Lining Co., 188 NY 261, 264 [1907]; Kelleher v F.M.E. | 1 | 1 |
Kaufman v. Esquenetgreen1 sentence2003Auto Leasing Corp., 192 AD2d 581, 583 [1993]). | 1 | 1 |
Kittredge v. Grannisgreen1 sentence1970This, as it has been noted, has undoubtedly been the rule in New York (Kittredge v. Grannis, 244 N. Y. 168, 175, 176 ; Ellwanger v. Whiteford, 15 A D 2d 898, affd. 12 N Y 2d 1037); in the Federal courts (Donnelly v. United States, 228 U. S. 243 ); and in a majority of the States (31A C. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Brown
green
2 sentences2015Rather, until 1970, when this Court decided People v Brown ( 26 NY2d 88 [1970]), the converse was true — only declarations against pecuniary or proprietary interests were admissible. 1978(People v Brown, 26 NY2d 88 .) In Brown , the statement, the admissibility of which the Court of Appeals sanctioned as an extension of the declaration against interest rule, was evidence sought to be used by the defendant in exoneration. | 3 | 1978–2015 |
Field v. Schultz
neutral
2 sentences2020Contrary to the defendants' contention, the declaration of the decedent did not fall within the declaration against interest exception to the hearsay rule because the defendants failed to establish that the subject statement was against the decedent's interest when made ( see Field v Schultz , 308 AD2d 505, 506 ). 2019Contrary to the defendants' contention, the declaration of the decedent did not fall within the declaration against interest exception to the hearsay rule because the defendants failed to establish that the subject statement was against the decedent's interest when made ( see Field v Schultz , 308 AD2d 505, 506 ). | 2 | 2019–2020 |
People v. Maerling
green
2 sentences2015The declaration-against-interest exception to the hearsay rule “flows from the fact that a person ordinarily does not reveal facts that are contrary to his own interest” unless those facts are true (Maerling, 46 NY2d at 295 ; People v Brensic, 70 NY2d 9, 14 [1987]). 2015The declaration-against-interest exception to the hearsay rule "flows from the fact that a person ordinarily does - 6 - - 7 - No. 206 not reveal facts that are contrary to his own interest" unless those facts are true (Maerling, 46 NY2d at 295 ; People v Brensic, 70 NY2d 9, 14 [1987]). | 2 | 1991–2015 |
People v. Spriggs
green
1 sentence1986This rather arbitrary distinction was ultimately abolished in People v Brown ( 26 NY2d 88 ) in which the Court of Appeals adopted the rationale that " '[a] declaration against penal interest is no less trustworthy [than an admission against pecuniary interest] * * * a person’s interest against being criminally implicated gives reasonable assurance of the veracity of his statement made against that interest’ ” (People v Brown, supra, at p 92 , quoting from People v Spriggs, 60 Cal 2d 868, 874, 389 P2d 377, 381 ). | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Donnelly v. United States
green
1 sentence1970This, as it has been noted, has undoubtedly been the rule in New York (Kittredge v. Grannis, 244 N. Y. 168, 175, 176 ; Ellwanger v. Whiteford, 15 A D 2d 898, affd. 12 N Y 2d 1037); in the Federal courts (Donnelly v. United States, 228 U. S. 243 ); and in a majority of the States (31A C. | 1 | 1970–1970 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.