hearsay rule in New York

2026We reject defendant's contention that the court erred in permitting the testimony of two witnesses under the prompt outcry exception to the hearsay rule ( see People v Stuckey , 50 AD3d 447, 448 [1st Dept 2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 742 [2008]; People v Rodriguez , 284 AD2d 952, 952 [4th Dept 2001], lv denied 96 NY2d 924 [2001]; see generally People v McDaniel , 81 NY2d 10, 16-18 [1993]).

2025As to the testimony of the complainant's mother that the complainant told her that something happened at the house of the complainant's father, the court properly determined that the statement fell within the prompt outcry exception to the hearsay rule because it was a report of sexual abuse made at the first suitable opportunity after the abuse occurred ( see People v Rath , 192 AD3d 1600, 1601 [4th Dept 2021], lv denied 37 NY3d 959 [2021]; see generally People v McDaniel , 81 NY2d 10, 17 [1993]; People v Kornowski , 178 AD2d 984 , 984 [4th Dept 1991], lv denied 89 NY2d 1096 [1997]).

2026The 911 call was properly admitted under both the excited utterance and present sense impression exceptions to the hearsay rule (<i>see People v Hernandez</i> 28 NY3d 1056, 1057 [2016]; <i>People v Brown</i>, 80 NY2d 729, 734 [1993]).

2024Further, the victim's statement to her friend that the defendant had "just" broken her cell phone was properly admitted under the present sense impression exception to the hearsay rule ( see People v Brown , 80 NY2d 729, 732-733 ; People v Porter , 210 AD3d 1012, 1014 ).

2026The court properly admitted the nontestifying victim's statement under the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule ( see People v Hernandez , 28 NY3d 1056, 1057 [2016]; People v Johnson , 1 NY3d 302, 306 [2003]).

2025An out-of-court statement is properly admissible under the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule when it is made while the declarant remains under the stress of excitement caused by a startling event ( People v Johnson , 1 NY3d 302, 306 [2003]).

2023During the call, the complainant told the 911 operator "I need the police here, I'm shaking, I'm scared." An objection to the admission of the 911 call would not have been meritorious, because the call was properly admitted "under the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule inasmuch as the statements were made while [the complainant] was under the extraordinary stress of" the situation, as well as "under the present sense impression exception . . . because [the call] [was] made while the declarant was perceiving 'the event as it [was] unfolding' " ( People v Jones , 66 AD3d 1442 , 1443

2022The present sense impression exception to the hearsay rule applies to statements that are “(1) made by a person perceiving the event as it is unfolding or immediately afterward” and “(2) corroborated by independent evidence establishing the reliability of the contents of the statement” (People v Cantave, 21 NY3d 374, 382 [2013]). “[D]escriptions of events made by a person who is perceiving the event as it is unfolding” are “deemed reliable . . . because the contemporaneity of the communication minimizes the opportunity for calculated misstatement as well as the risk of inaccuracy from faulty m

2020It is well settled that recordings of 911 calls may be admitted into evidence pursuant to the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule when they are made under the stress of excitement caused by an external event, and are not the product of studied reflection and possible fabrication ( see People v Johnson , 1 NY3d 302 , 306 [2003]; People v Brown , 70 NY2d 513, 519-520 [1987]; People v Edwards , 47 NY2d 493 [1979]).

2018In this regard, the allegations reasonably justify the conclusion that the victim's statements to the officer qualify for admission under the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule ( see People v Johnson , 1 NY3d 302 [2003]), since the statements were made while still under the influence of the stress of the incident ( see People v Johnson, 129 AD3d 486 [2015], lv denied 26 NY3d 1089 [2015]; People v Auleta , 82 AD3d 1417 , 1419 [2011], lv denied [*2] 17 NY3d 813 [2011]; People v Mitchell , 46 AD3d 480 [2007], lv denied 10 NY3d 842 [2008]), and not under the impetus of studied reflect

2025"To constitute a business record exception to the hearsay rule, the proponent of the record must first demonstrate that it was within the scope of the entrant's business duty to record the act, transaction or occurrence sought to be admitted" ( Matter of Leon RR , 48 NY2d 117, 122 ; see CPLR 4518[a]; Matter of James M.B. [Claudia H.] , 155 AD3d 1027, 1030 ).

2025"To constitute a business record exception to the hearsay rule, the proponent of the record must first demonstrate that it was within the scope of the entrant's business duty to record the act, transaction or occurrence sought to be admitted" ( Matter of Leon RR , 48 NY2d 117, 122; see CPLR 4518[a]; Matter of James M.B. [Claudia H.] , 155 AD3d 1027, 1030).

2023"The hearsay exception for declarations against penal interest applies where (1) the declarant is unavailable to testify; (2) the declarant was aware when making the declaration that it was contrary to his or her penal interest; (3) the declarant had competent knowledge of the relevant facts; and (4) there is 'sufficient competent evidence independent of the declaration to assure its trustworthiness and reliability' " ( People v Thibodeau , 151 AD3d 1548 , 1553 [4th Dept 2017], affd 31 NY3d 1155 [2018], quoting People v Brensic , 70 NY2d 9, 15 [1987]).

2021Here, the court properly determined that the officer's proposed testimony was inadmissible inasmuch as the statement made to her relaying the purported third-party admission constituted hearsay and did not fall within any of the exceptions to the hearsay rule ( see generally People v Brensic , 70 NY2d 9, 14 [1987], remittitur amended 70 NY2d 722 [1987]; People v Meadow , 140 AD3d 1596, 1598 [4th Dept 2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 933 [2016], reconsideration denied 28 NY3d 972 [2016]).

2025Moreover, the County Court properly admitted into evidence the audiotapes of a telephone call to the 911 emergency number under the present sense impression exception to the hearsay rule, as the caller's comments indicated that she was observing the subject crimes as they occurred ( see People v Buie , 86 NY2d 501, 506 ; People v Williams , 208 AD3d 1263, 1265 ; People v McCall , 80 AD3d 626, 627 ).

2022Moreover, the Supreme Court properly admitted into evidence the audiotapes of 911 emergency calls under the present sense impression exception to the hearsay rule as the callers' comments indicated that they were observing the subject crimes as they occurred ( see People v Buie , 86 NY2d 501, 506 ; People v McCall , 80 AD3d 626, 627 ).

2024Such documents are business records subject to the evidentiary rules governing their admissibility ( see CPLR 4518; see generally People v Kennedy , 68 NY2d 569 [1986]), and defendant did not produce the documents in admissible form, nor did she lay a sufficient foundation to satisfy the business records exception to the hearsay rule ( see Hakim , 2018 NY Slip Op 51112[U] ).

2024Penal Law § 175.30 renders one "guilty of [the class A misdemeanor of] offering a false instrument for filing in the second degree when," similar to Penal Law § 210.45, "he offers or presents it to a public office or public servant with the knowledge or belief that it will be filed with, registered or recorded in or otherwise become a part of the records of such public office or public servant." Footnote 2: Support for this conclusion is found in the business records exception to the hearsay rule, which is grounded in the theory "that records systematically made for the conduct of a business a

2025Here, we find that, as the description of how the complainant sustained an injury to his left wrist was relevant to his diagnosis and treatment, including surgery, it was not an improvident exercise of discretion for the District Court to have determined not to redact the word "assault" from the medical records before allowing them into evidence pursuant to the business records exception to the hearsay rule ( see CPL 60.10; CPLR 4518; People v Ortega , 15 NY3d 610, 617 [2010]; Dawson , 195 AD3d 1157 ; People v Singleton , 140 AD2d 388 [1988]).

2025More recently, in People v Ortega ( 15 NY3d at 613 ), the Court of Appeals decided two criminal appeals in which the "common issue" was whether certain statements appearing in medical records were properly admitted under the business records exception to the hearsay rule.

2020It is well settled that recordings of 911 calls may be admitted into evidence pursuant to the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule when they are made under the stress of excitement caused by an external event, and are not the product of studied reflection and possible fabrication ( see People v Johnson , 1 NY3d 302 , 306 [2003]; People v Brown , 70 NY2d 513, 519-520 [1987]; People v Edwards , 47 NY2d 493 [1979]).

2018The Supreme Court properly admitted into evidence the tape recording of the victim's 911 call under the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule ( see People v Brooks , 71 NY2d 877, 878 ; People v Brown , 70 NY2d 513, 518 ).

2025For the medical report to be admissible as a business record and, therefore, as an exception to the hearsay rule, there must be testimony from a person with knowledge of the business's record-keeping procedures that the medical report was prepared contemporaneously to the examination of the complainant, that the medical report was prepared in the regular course of business, and that it was the regular course of business to prepare such a medical report ( see CPLR 4518[a]; CPL 60.10; People v Cratsley , 86 NY2d 81, 91 ).

2025For the medical report to be admissible as a business record and, therefore, as an exception to the hearsay rule, there must be testimony from a person with knowledge of the business's record-keeping procedures that the medical report was prepared contemporaneously to the examination of the complainant, that the medical report was prepared in the regular course of business, and that it was the regular course of business to prepare such a medical report ( see CPLR 4518[a]; CPL 60.10; People v Cratsley , 86 NY2d 81, 91 ).

2021The declaration against penal interest exception to the hearsay rule is based on "the belief that a statement asserting matters directly endangering one's penal interest by admitting facts that may lead to criminal liability is unlikely to be deliberately false" ( People v Settles , 46 NY2d 154, 167 ; see People v Shabazz , 22 NY3d 896, 898 ; People v Brensic , 70 NY2d 9, 14 ). "[B]efore statements of a nontestifying third party are admissible as a declaration against penal interest, the proponent must satisfy the court that four prerequisites are met: (1) the declarant must be unavailable to

2021The declaration against penal interest exception to the hearsay rule is based on "the belief that a statement asserting matters directly endangering one's penal interest by admitting facts that may lead to criminal liability is unlikely to be deliberately false" ( People v Settles , 46 NY2d 154, 167 ; see People v Shabazz , 22 NY3d 896, 898 ; People v Brensic , 70 NY2d 9, 14 ). "[B]efore statements of a nontestifying third party are admissible as a declaration against penal interest, the proponent must satisfy the court that four prerequisites are met: (1) the declarant must be unavailable to

2021We also reject defendant's contention that the court erred in admitting, under the dying declaration exception to the hearsay rule ( see generally People v Nieves , 67 NY2d 125, 131-133 [1986]), testimony from a police officer stating that the victim identified defendant as the person who shot him.

2017Moreover, the People failed to proffer any exception to the hearsay rule under New York law that would have allowed the criminalist to relay the content of the unadmitted laboratory reports (see People v Nieves, 67 NY2d 125, 131 [1986]).

2025In any event, while the statements should not have been [*3]admitted under the coconspirator exception to the hearsay rule ( see People v Caban , 5 NY3d 143, 148 ), the error was harmless, as there was overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt, and no significant probability that the error contributed to the defendant's convictions ( see People v Jin Zheng , 127 AD3d at 891 ).

2025In any event, while the statements should not have been [*3]admitted under the coconspirator exception to the hearsay rule ( see People v Caban , 5 NY3d 143, 148 ), the error was harmless, as there was overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt, and no significant probability that the error contributed to the defendant's convictions ( see People v Jin Zheng , 127 AD3d at 891 ).

2021The statements made to the caseworkers were admitted only to complete the narrative, not for the truth of the matter asserted ( see Matter of Aliyah M. [Lynnise M.] , 159 AD3d 1564 , 1565 [4th Dept 2018], lv denied 31 NY3d 911 [2018]; see generally People v Medley , 132 AD3d 1255 , 1256 [4th Dept 2015], lv denied 26 NY3d 1110 [2016], reconsideration denied 27 NY3d 967 [2016]), and the statement made to the officer was properly admitted under the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule ( see Matter of Rebecca V. [Diomedes V.] , 180 AD3d 413, 413-414 [1st Dept 2020]; Matter of Kirkpatric

2016Contrary to the mother’s further contention, the court did not err in admitting testimony concerning the child’s out-of-court statements under the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule (see People v Miller, 115 AD3d 1302, 1303-1304 [2014], lv denied 23 NY3d 1040 [2014]; see generally People v Caviness, 38 NY2d 227, 230-232 [1975]).

2019"Out-of-court statements offered for the truth of the matters they assert are hearsay and may be received in evidence only if they fall within one of the recognized exceptions to the hearsay rule, and then only if the proponent demonstrates that the evidence is reliable" ( Nucci v Proper , 95 NY2d 597, 602 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Viviane Etienne Med.

2017We instead further conclude that, because the school bus aide’s statement was made under the stress of excitement caused by the accident, it constitutes an excited utterance admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule (see Langner v Primary Home Care Servs., *1849 Inc., 83 AD3d 1007, 1009-1010 [2011]; see generally Nucci v Proper, 95 NY2d 597, 602 [2001]).

2023Contrary to the father's contention, the Family Court properly ruled that certain hearsay statements were not admissible under the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule ( see People v Cantave , 21 NY3d 374, 381-382 ; Matter of O'Connor v O'Connor , 202 AD3d 689, 690 ; Matter of Johnson v Johnson , 146 AD3d 954, 955 ).

2023Thus, the statement qualified as a present sense exception to the hearsay rule ( see People v Cantave , 21 NY3d 374, 382 [2013] see generally People v Brown , 80 NY2d 729, 733-737 [1993]).

2015In any event, while the statements should not have been admitted under the coconspirator exception to the hearsay rule (see People v Caban, 5 NY3d 143, 148 [2005]), the error was harmless (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 237 [1975]).

2015In any event, while the statements should not have been admitted under the coconspirator exception to the hearsay rule (see People v Caban, 5 NY3d 143, 148 [2005]), the error was harmless (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 237 [1975]).

2024With respect to the fourth element of the sole proximate cause defense, our reading of the record reveals that the only evidence that plaintiff's actions may have been the cause of his fall is a single entry in the history and physical of the emergency department notes from the night of plaintiff's accident stating that he "blames the darkness and missing a step." It is well established that notations in a plaintiff's medical record that are "not germane to the plaintiff's diagnosis or treatment . . . [are] not admissible for their truth under the business records exception to the hearsay rule

2021Medical records routinely fall within the business records exception ( see CPL 60.10) to the hearsay rule when they "reflect[] acts, occurrences or events that relate to diagnosis, prognosis or treatment or are otherwise helpful to an understanding of the medical or surgical aspects of [the particular patient's] hospitalization" ( Williams , 309 NY at 287 [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]).

2021Hearsay, of course, is “an out-of-court statement admitted for the truth of the matter asserted” (People v Buie, 86 NY2d 501, 505 [1995]), and the hearsay rule generally prohibits the introduction of such statements at trial (see People v Salko, 47 NY2d 230, 239 [1979]).

2019In our view, County Court properly overruled the objection and allowed the testimony under the coconspirator exception to the hearsay rule ( see People v Berkowitz , 50 NY2d 333, 341 [1980]; People v Salko , 47 NY2d 230, 237-238 [1979]; People v Cancer , 16 AD3d 835, 839 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 826 [2005]).

2024At this stage of the proceeding this court is tasked with determining if there is reasonable cause to believe the defendant committed the offense charged and that such charge is supported by non-hearsay allegations, or as relates to the question of whether the defendant was served with the order of protection an allegation that is admissible under a hearsay rule exception ( see People v Casey , 95 NY2d 354, 361 [2000]).

2024At this stage of the proceeding this court is tasked with determining if there is reasonable cause to believe the defendant committed the offense charged and that such charge is supported by non-hearsay allegations, or as relates to the question of whether the defendant was served with the order of protection an allegation that is admissible under a hearsay rule exception ( see People v Casey , 95 NY2d 354, 361 [2000]).

2018Accordingly, application of this hearsay rule so stringently as to deny a defendant's right to present a defense would violate the Constitution ( see Chambers , 410 US at 294 [discussing exclusion of hearsay that served as crucial third-party culpability evidence, inter alia, as a denial of "(t)he right of an accused in a criminal trial to due process(, which) is, in essence, the right to a fair opportunity to defend against the State's accusations"]). [*10] Another rationale for admitting statements against penal interest despite declarants' availability is the opportunity to subject the decl

2016"Confrontation Clause challenges ( see Crawford v Washington , 541 US 36 [2004]) to the admission of a breath testing machine's calibration and maintenance documents under the business records exception to the hearsay rule (CPLR 4518) have been considered and rejected ( see People v Pealer , 20 NY3d 447 , 455 [2013]; People v Lent , 29 Misc 3d 14 [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2010]; People v Lebrecht , 13 Misc 3d 45 [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2006])" ( People v McCombs , 47 Misc 3d 44 , 48 [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2015]).

2024Moreover, the maker of the record must have personal knowledge of its creation or, assuming another person made it, it must be shown that such person was under a business duty to make it. ( See Johnson v Lutz, 253 NY 124 [1930]; Matter of Leon RR , 48 NY2d 117 [1979]; Bank of NY Mellon v Gordon , 171 AD3d 197 [2d Dept 2019].) Plaintiff refers to Exhibit M (NYSCEF Doc No. 88) as being IMI's tax returns but, again, there is nothing to authenticate them as business records in accordance with the business record exception to the hearsay rule.

2019We agree with the Supreme Court's determination to admit into evidence "sprint" reports regarding the 911 calls under the business records exception to the hearsay rule ( see CPLR 4518[a]; People v Patterson , 28 NY3d 544, 551 ; Matter of Leon RR , 48 NY2d 117, 122 ; Johnson v Lutz , 253 NY 124 ; Matter of James M.B. [Claudia H.] , 155 AD3d 1027 , 1030; cf .

2014The out-of-court statements made by defendant’s (now) deceased chief financial officer were admissible under the “speaking agent” exception to the hearsay rule (see Loschiavo v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 58 NY2d 1040, 1041 [1983]).

2011The statement does not fall within the exception to the hearsay rule for an agent’s making of a statement as an activity within the scope of his authority (see Loschiavo v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 58 NY2d 1040, 1041 [1983]).