admission exception in New York

2012Furthermore, if the admission was error, as defendant contends, it was harmless error in light of the overwhelming testimony identifying defendant as an assailant (People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230 [1975]; see generally People v Arafet, 13 NY3d 460, 467 [2009]; People v Ventimiglia, 52 NY2d 350, 361 [1981]; People v Echavarria, 53 AD3d 859, 863 [3d Dept 2008]).

1991However, since there is overwhelming evidence to support the remaining three charges of which the defendant was convicted (i.e., driving while intoxicated [Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 (3)], assault in the third degree [Penal Law § 120.00 (3)], and violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1128 [a]), any error in the admission of the test results was harmless as to those charges (see, People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230 ), and the defendant’s conviction as to those charges is affirmed.

2016The record establishes that, in its allocution with respondent and her mother, the court properly advised them of respondent’s right to a fact-finding hearing, and the court ascertained that respondent committed the act to which she was entering the admission, that she was voluntarily waiving her right to a fact-finding hearing, that her mother did not object to the admission and waiver, and that they were aware of the possible specific dispositional orders (see § 321.3 [1]; Matter of William VV., 42 AD3d 710, 712 [2007]; cf. Dakota L.K., 70 AD3d at 1334-1335 ).

2016The record establishes that, in its allocution with respondent and her mother, the court properly advised them of respondent’s right to a fact-finding hearing, and the court ascertained that respondent committed the act to which she was entering the admission, that she was voluntarily waiving her right to a fact-finding hearing, that her mother did not object to the admission and waiver, and that they were aware of the possible specific dispositional orders (see § 321.3 [1]; Matter of William VV., 42 AD3d 710, 712 [2007]; cf. Dakota L.K., 70 AD3d at 1334-1335 ).

2024Group , 285 AD2d 369 [2001]). ( Kabalan v Hoghooghi , 77 AD3d 1350 [4th Dept 2010].) "In a civil action the admissions by a party of any fact material to the issue are always competent evidence against him, wherever, whenever or to whomsoever made. ( Cook v. Barr , 44 NY 156 ; Whiton v. Snyder , 88 NY 306 ; Eisenlord v. Clum , 126 NY 559 ; Hutchins v. Van Vechten , 140 NY 118 ; Owen v. Cawley , 36 NY 600 .) The theory upon which this class of evidence is held to be competent is that it is highly improbable that a party will admit or state anything against himself or against his own interest un

2024Group , 285 AD2d 369 [2001]). ( Kabalan v Hoghooghi , 77 AD3d 1350 [4th Dept 2010].) "In a civil action the admissions by a party of any fact material to the issue are always competent evidence against him, wherever, whenever or to whomsoever made. ( Cook v. Barr , 44 NY 156 ; Whiton v. Snyder , 88 NY 306 ; Eisenlord v. Clum , 126 NY 559 ; Hutchins v. Van Vechten , 140 NY 118 ; Owen v. Cawley , 36 NY 600 .) The theory upon which this class of evidence is held to be competent is that it is highly improbable that a party will admit or state anything against himself or against his own interest un

2024Group , 285 AD2d 369 [2001]). ( Kabalan v Hoghooghi , 77 AD3d 1350 [4th Dept 2010].) "In a civil action the admissions by a party of any fact material to the issue are always competent evidence against him, wherever, whenever or to whomsoever made. ( Cook v. Barr , 44 NY 156 ; Whiton v. Snyder , 88 NY 306 ; Eisenlord v. Clum , 126 NY 559 ; Hutchins v. Van Vechten , 140 NY 118 ; Owen v. Cawley , 36 NY 600 .) The theory upon which this class of evidence is held to be competent is that it is highly improbable that a party will admit or state anything against himself or against his own interest un

2024Group , 285 AD2d 369 [2001]). ( Kabalan v Hoghooghi , 77 AD3d 1350 [4th Dept 2010].) "In a civil action the admissions by a party of any fact material to the issue are always competent evidence against him, wherever, whenever or to whomsoever made. ( Cook v. Barr , 44 NY 156 ; Whiton v. Snyder , 88 NY 306 ; Eisenlord v. Clum , 126 NY 559 ; Hutchins v. Van Vechten , 140 NY 118 ; Owen v. Cawley , 36 NY 600 .) The theory upon which this class of evidence is held to be competent is that it is highly improbable that a party will admit or state anything against himself or against his own interest un

2024Group , 285 AD2d 369 [2001]). ( Kabalan v Hoghooghi , 77 AD3d 1350 [4th Dept 2010].) "In a civil action the admissions by a party of any fact material to the issue are always competent evidence against him, wherever, whenever or to whomsoever made. ( Cook v. Barr , 44 NY 156 ; Whiton v. Snyder , 88 NY 306 ; Eisenlord v. Clum , 126 NY 559 ; Hutchins v. Van Vechten , 140 NY 118 ; Owen v. Cawley , 36 NY 600 .) The theory upon which this class of evidence is held to be competent is that it is highly improbable that a party will admit or state anything against himself or against his own interest un

2024Group , 285 AD2d 369 [2001]). ( Kabalan v Hoghooghi , 77 AD3d 1350 [4th Dept 2010].) "In a civil action the admissions by a party of any fact material to the issue are always competent evidence against him, wherever, whenever or to whomsoever made. ( Cook v. Barr , 44 NY 156 ; Whiton v. Snyder , 88 NY 306 ; Eisenlord v. Clum , 126 NY 559 ; Hutchins v. Van Vechten , 140 NY 118 ; Owen v. Cawley , 36 NY 600 .) The theory upon which this class of evidence is held to be competent is that it is highly improbable that a party will admit or state anything against himself or against his own interest un

2024Group , 285 AD2d 369 [2001]). ( Kabalan v Hoghooghi , 77 AD3d 1350 [4th Dept 2010].) "In a civil action the admissions by a party of any fact material to the issue are always competent evidence against him, wherever, whenever or to whomsoever made. ( Cook v. Barr , 44 NY 156 ; Whiton v. Snyder , 88 NY 306 ; Eisenlord v. Clum , 126 NY 559 ; Hutchins v. Van Vechten , 140 NY 118 ; Owen v. Cawley , 36 NY 600 .) The theory upon which this class of evidence is held to be competent is that it is highly improbable that a party will admit or state anything against himself or against his own interest un

2024Group , 285 AD2d 369 [2001]). ( Kabalan v Hoghooghi , 77 AD3d 1350 [4th Dept 2010].) "In a civil action the admissions by a party of any fact material to the issue are always competent evidence against him, wherever, whenever or to whomsoever made. ( Cook v. Barr , 44 NY 156 ; Whiton v. Snyder , 88 NY 306 ; Eisenlord v. Clum , 126 NY 559 ; Hutchins v. Van Vechten , 140 NY 118 ; Owen v. Cawley , 36 NY 600 .) The theory upon which this class of evidence is held to be competent is that it is highly improbable that a party will admit or state anything against himself or against his own interest un

2016In the latter regard, statements made by defendant during the 911 calls and his statement to the police that he made the calls are admissible under the party admission exception to the hearsay rule ( see People v Davis , 213 AD2d 665 [1995], lv denied 86 NY2d 734 [1995] ["[t]he tape of the defendant's call to the telephone emergency 911 number after the incident was properly admitted as an admission"]; People v Collins , 301 AD2d 452 [2003], lv denied 1 NY3d 570 [2003] [statement made by defendant to a witness "properly received under the admission exception to the hearsay rule"]; People v Har

2003The record reflects that the statement was properly received under the admission exception to the hearsay rule because it was inconsistent with defendant’s position at trial (see People v Harris, 148 AD2d 469 ).

2016In the latter regard, statements made by defendant during the 911 calls and his statement to the police that he made the calls are admissible under the party admission exception to the hearsay rule ( see People v Davis , 213 AD2d 665 [1995], lv denied 86 NY2d 734 [1995] ["[t]he tape of the defendant's call to the telephone emergency 911 number after the incident was properly admitted as an admission"]; People v Collins , 301 AD2d 452 [2003], lv denied 1 NY3d 570 [2003] [statement made by defendant to a witness "properly received under the admission exception to the hearsay rule"]; People v Har

2005Contrary to defendant’s contention, the alleged statement could not be received under the admission exception to the hearsay rule. “[A]n admission can only be made by a party and the parties in a criminal action are the State and the defendant^] the [complaining witness] is not a party” (People v Auricchio, 141 AD2d 552 [1988], lv denied 72 NY2d 954 [1988]; cf. People v Collins, 301 AD2d 452 [2003], lv denied 1 NY3d 570 [2003] [admission of defendant properly received as inconsistent with his position at trial]; see generally Prince, Richardson on Evidence § 8-201 [Farrell 11th ed]).

2013Co., 79 AD3d 864 [2010]), and we are not aware of any other decision of this Court, in the context of no-fault insurance benefits litigation, requiring a plaintiff medical provider to lay a foundation for the admission of their claim forms under the business records exception to the hearsay rule in order to establish a prima facie case.

2013Co., 79 AD3d 864 [2010]), and we are not aware of any other decision of this Court, in the context of no-fault insurance benefits litigation, requiring a plaintiff medical provider to lay a foundation for the admission of their claim forms under the business records exception to the hearsay rule in order to establish a prima facie case.

2011The father’s admission at the hearing that he had not paid child support as required by that order constituted prima facie evidence of a willful violation thereof, and thus the burden shifted to the father to present some competent and credible evidence justifying his failure to pay child support (see Matter of Powers v Powers, 86 NY2d 63, 68-69 ; Matter of Lomanto v Schneider, 78 AD3d 1536 ).

2011The father’s admission at the hearing that he had not paid child support as required by that order constituted prima facie evidence of a willful violation thereof, and thus the burden shifted to the father to present some competent and credible evidence justifying his failure to pay child support (see Matter of Powers v Powers, 86 NY2d 63, 68-69 [1995]; Matter of Lomanto v Schneider, 78 AD3d 1536 [2010] ).

1999Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the resentence imposed by the court upon the defendant’s admission to a violation of probation was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 ).

1998The defendant’s sentence was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 ).

1998Contrary to the defendant’s contention, an admission to a violation of probation does not require a waiver of the full panoply of constitutional rights that are waived by reason of a guilty plea to a criminal offense (see, People v Hunter, supra; People v Keemer, 186 AD2d 586 ; People v Lombardo, 108 AD2d 873 ).

1993Notably, an admission to a violation of probation does not require a waiver of the full panoply of constitutional rights that are waived by reason of a guilty plea to a criminal offense (People v Lombardo, 108 AD2d 873 ).

1993(Schmerber v California, 384 US 757 [1966].) In Schmerber (supra), the Supreme Court was faced with deciding if a defendant’s Fifth Amendment constitutional rights were being infringed by a compulsory blood test and the admission of the test results into evidence.

1993(Schmerber v California, 384 US 757 [1966].) In Schmerber (supra), the Supreme Court was faced with deciding if a defendant’s Fifth Amendment constitutional rights were being infringed by a compulsory blood test and the admission of the test results into evidence.

1987Thus, to require the weight/volume test results to be converted into weight/weight terms would (a) demand an additional computation beyond any made in ordinary chemical analyses; (b) produce only marginal changes in the blood alcohol percentages admitted; and (c) introduce an averaging factor, the specific gravity of blood, which, because an average ignores individual variations, will incorporate an otherwise avoidable margin of error in the test results (Commonwealth v Brooks, 366 Mass 423, 319 NE2d 901 ). 2 Since blood alcohol analysts have followed a widespread and long-standing scientific

1983(See People v Meikrantz, 77 Misc 2d 892 .) Similarly, the absence of compliance with 10 NYCRR 59.4, in that the Intoximeter 3000 is not listed by the director of the State Police laboratory as a device which meets the criteria of the Department of Health, is not a bar to the admission into evidence of its test results where otherwise not prohibited by law. 6 Essentially both threshold arguments by the defendant beg the basic question: Can the Intoximeter 3000 reliably and accurately measure the amount of alcohol in a driver’s blood through an analysis of the subject’s breath?

1979The statement, although admissible against Armstrong under the admission exception to the hearsay rule, was inadmissible as to Thomas, since it was made outside of Thomas’ presence and after the joint enterprise had ended (People v Marshall, 306 NY 223, 226 ; Richardson, Evidence [10th ed], § 232, pp 206-207).

1978Although admissible against Thomas under the admission exception to the hearsay rule, Thomas’ statement was inadmissible as to defendant since it was made outside of defendant’s presence and after any joint enterprise had ended (People v Marshall, 306 NY 223, 226 ; Richardson, Evidence [10th ed], § 232, pp 206-207).

2019The defendant's contention that the procedure surrounding the admission to his violation of a condition of a previously imposed sentence of probation rendered the admission invalid is unpreserved for appellate review ( see People v Williams , 27 NY3d 212 ; People v Nahshal , 146 AD3d 817 ; People v Heine , 122 AD3d 644 ; People v Quiman , 71 AD3d 921 ), and we decline to reach it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction ( see CPL 470.15[6]; People v Hazel , 145 AD3d 797 ).

2019The defendant's contention that the procedure surrounding the admission to his violation of a condition of a previously imposed sentence of probation rendered the admission invalid is unpreserved for appellate review ( see People v Williams , 27 NY3d 212 ; People v Nahshal , 146 AD3d 817 ; People v Heine , 122 AD3d 644 ; People v Quiman , 71 AD3d 921 ), and we decline to reach it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction ( see CPL 470.15[6]; People v Hazel , 145 AD3d 797 ).

2019The defendant's contention that the procedure surrounding the admission to his violation of a condition of a previously imposed sentence of probation rendered the admission invalid is unpreserved for appellate review ( see People v Williams , 27 NY3d 212 ; People v Nahshal , 146 AD3d 817 ; People v Heine , 122 AD3d 644 ; People v Quiman , 71 AD3d 921 ), and we decline to reach it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction ( see CPL 470.15[6]; People v Hazel , 145 AD3d 797 ).

2019The defendant's contention that the procedure surrounding the admission to his violation of a condition of a previously imposed sentence of probation rendered the admission invalid is unpreserved for appellate review ( see People v Williams , 27 NY3d 212 ; People v Nahshal , 146 AD3d 817 ; People v Heine , 122 AD3d 644 ; People v Quiman , 71 AD3d 921 ), and we decline to reach it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction ( see CPL 470.15[6]; People v Hazel , 145 AD3d 797 ).