authentication requirement in New York

2020The fact that the prosecutor here could not establish that defendant posted the unredacted video to YouTube and World Star Hip Hop, or that he had dominion and control over the accounts that uploaded the video to those sites, only further confirms that on this record it was error to admit the redacted video (see id. at 478 [noting that, even under the proposed alternative test, the authentication requirement “cannot be satisfied solely by proof that defendant’s surname and picture appears [sic] on the profile page” containing the incriminating photograph of the defendant]).

2019People v Price , 29 NY3d 472 , 476 [2017] [satisfying an authentication requirement "is . . . a condition precedent to admitting evidence"] [internal quotation marks omitted]).

2020Rather, [because] the ultimate object of the authentication requirement is to insure the accuracy of the photograph sought to be admitted into evidence, any person having the requisite knowledge of the facts may verify' . . . that the photograph has not been altered" ( id. [emphasis added]).

2018In particular, the authentication requirement demands that the party seeking to admit photographic evidence establish that each offered photograph "accurately represent[s] the subject matter depicted" ( People v Byrnes , 33 NY2d 343, 347 [1974]; accord People v Price , 29 NY3d at 477 ; People v Marra , 96 AD3d 1623 , 1625-1626 [2012], affd 21 NY3d 979 [2013]; see generally People v McGee , 49 NY2d 48, 59 [1979]).

2018In particular, the authentication requirement demands that the party seeking to admit photographic evidence establish that each offered photograph "accurately represent[s] the subject matter depicted" ( People v Byrnes , 33 NY2d 343, 347 [1974]; accord People v Price , 29 NY3d at 477 ; People v Marra , 96 AD3d 1623 , 1625-1626 [2012], affd 21 NY3d 979 [2013]; see generally People v McGee , 49 NY2d 48, 59 [1979]).

2017The People failed to authenticate the photograph through any of these methods at trial, as the victim was unable to identify the weapon as that which was used in the robbery, 2 and no other witnesses testified that the photograph was a fair and accurate representation of the scene depicted (see People v Marra, 21 NY3d 979 , 981 [2013], affg 96 AD3d 1623, 1625-1626 [4th Dept 2012]; Byrnes, 33 NY2d at 347 ; Alberti v New York, Lake Erie & W.

2026The authentication requirement applies to civil as well as criminal proceedings ( see Zegarelli v Hughes , 3 NY3d 64, 69 [2004] [applying Patterson standard for authentication of videotape in civil context]).

2019However, a claim that a recording was played without a proper authentication must be preserved for appellate review ( see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Heard , 92 AD3d 1142 , 1144-1145 [2012]; People v Dantata , 55 AD3d 404 , 404 [2008]; People v Brown , 214 AD2d 679, 679 [1995]), and, here, the defense stated no objection when the People offered the video recording for the trial court's review, waiting until after the recording had been played four times, all or in part, before raising the objection that the recording, which had been marked only for identification, had been played prior its authen

2018The circumstantial evidence, including the inmate's testimony and the content of the notes themselves, satisfied the authentication requirement ( see People v Jackson , 125 AD3d 1002, 1003 [2015], lv denied 25 NY3d 1202 [2015]; People v Myers , 87 AD3d 826, 827-828 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 954 [2011]; People v Bryant , 12 AD3d 1077 , 1079 [2004], lv denied 4 NY3d 761 [2005]; People v Thomas , 272 AD2d 892, 893 [2000], lv denied 95 NY2d 858 [2000]).

2018The circumstantial evidence, including the inmate's testimony and the content of the notes themselves, satisfied the authentication requirement ( see People v Jackson , 125 AD3d 1002, 1003 [2015], lv denied 25 NY3d 1202 [2015]; People v Myers , 87 AD3d 826, 827-828 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 954 [2011]; People v Bryant , 12 AD3d 1077 , 1079 [2004], lv denied 4 NY3d 761 [2005]; People v Thomas , 272 AD2d 892, 893 [2000], lv denied 95 NY2d 858 [2000]).

2018In particular, the authentication requirement demands that the party seeking to admit photographic evidence establish that each offered photograph "accurately represent[s] the subject matter depicted" ( People v Byrnes , 33 NY2d 343, 347 [1974]; accord People v Price , 29 NY3d at 477 ; People v Marra , 96 AD3d 1623 , 1625-1626 [2012], affd 21 NY3d 979 [2013]; see generally People v McGee , 49 NY2d 48, 59 [1979]).

2018The circumstantial evidence, including the inmate's testimony and the content of the notes themselves, satisfied the authentication requirement ( see People v Jackson , 125 AD3d 1002, 1003 [2015], lv denied 25 NY3d 1202 [2015]; People v Myers , 87 AD3d 826, 827-828 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 954 [2011]; People v Bryant , 12 AD3d 1077 , 1079 [2004], lv denied 4 NY3d 761 [2005]; People v Thomas , 272 AD2d 892, 893 [2000], lv denied 95 NY2d 858 [2000]).

2017Rather, since the ultimate object of the authentication requirement is to insure the accuracy of the photograph sought to be admitted into evidence, any person having the requisite knowledge of the facts may verify,” or an expert may testify that the photograph has not been altered (Byrnes, 33 NY2d at 347 [citations omitted]; see Patterson, 93 NY2d at 84 ).

2017Rather, since the ultimate object of the authentication requirement is to insure the accuracy of the photograph sought to be admitted into evidence, any person having the requisite knowledge of the facts may verify," or an expert may testify that the photograph has not been altered (Byrnes, 33 NY2d at 347 ; see Patterson, 93 NY2d at 84 ).

2017Thus, even if we were to accept that the photograph could be authenticated through proof that the web page on which it was found was attributable to defendant, the People’s proffered authentication evidence failed to actually demonstrate that defendant was aware of — let alone exercised dominion or control over — the profile page in question (see United States v Vayner, 769 F3d 125, 132-133 [2d Cir 2014]; Commonwealth v Williams, 456 Mass 857, 869, 926 NE2d 1162, 1172-1173 [2010]; compare Jones, 318 P3d at *6; Moore v State, 295 Ga 709, 713, 763 SE2d 670, 674 [2014]).

2017Thus, even if we were to accept that the photograph could be authenticated through proof that the web page on which it was found was attributable to defendant, the People’s proffered authentication evidence failed to actually demonstrate that defendant was aware of — let alone exercised dominion or control over — the profile page in question (see United States v Vayner, 769 F3d 125, 132-133 [2d Cir 2014]; Commonwealth v Williams, 456 Mass 857, 869, 926 NE2d 1162, 1172-1173 [2010]; compare Jones, 318 P3d at *6; Moore v State, 295 Ga 709, 713, 763 SE2d 670, 674 [2014]).

2017Thus, even if we were to accept that the photograph could be authenticated through proof that the website on which it was found was attributable to defendant, the People's proffered authentication evidence failed to actually demonstrate that defendant was aware of -- let alone exercised dominion or control over -- the profile page in question (see United States v Vayner, 769 F3d 125, 132-133 [2d Cir 2014]; Commonwealth v Williams, 456 Mass 857, 869 [2010]; compare Jones, 318 P3d at *6; Moore v State, 295 Ga 709, 713, 763 SE2d 670, 674 [2014]).

2017Thus, even if we were to accept that the photograph could be authenticated through proof that the web page on which it was found was attributable to defendant, the People’s proffered authentication evidence failed to actually demonstrate that defendant was aware of — let alone exercised dominion or control over — the profile page in question (see United States v Vayner, 769 F3d 125, 132-133 [2d Cir 2014]; Commonwealth v Williams, 456 Mass 857, 869, 926 NE2d 1162, 1172-1173 [2010]; compare Jones, 318 P3d at *6; Moore v State, 295 Ga 709, 713, 763 SE2d 670, 674 [2014]).

2017Thus, even if we were to accept that the photograph could be authenticated through proof that the website on which it was found was attributable to defendant, the People's proffered authentication evidence failed to actually demonstrate that defendant was aware of -- let alone exercised dominion or control over -- the profile page in question (see United States v Vayner, 769 F3d 125, 132-133 [2d Cir 2014]; Commonwealth v Williams, 456 Mass 857, 869 [2010]; compare Jones, 318 P3d at *6; Moore v State, 295 Ga 709, 713, 763 SE2d 670, 674 [2014]).