limited purpose exception in New York

1999The separately apprehended juvenile’s statement to the complaining witness, also overheard by the police officer and contained within his deposition, constituted the necessary additional proof that the crime charged had been committed (Family Ct Act § 344.2 [3]; Matter of Rodney J., supra), and was admissible for this limited purpose under an exception to the hearsay rule as a declaration against penal interest (People v Thomas, 68 NY2d 194 ).

1999The separately apprehended juvenile’s statement to the complaining witness, also overheard by the police officer and contained within his deposition, constituted the necessary additional proof that the crime charged had been committed (Family Ct Act § 344.2 [3]; Matter of Rodney J., supra), and was admissible for this limited purpose under an exception to the hearsay rule as a declaration against penal interest (People v Thomas, 68 NY2d 194 ).

1991The fact that the demonstration was held outside the courtroom was merely an element for County Court to consider in permitting the demonstration and did not of itself render the test inappropriate (see, People v Estrada, 109 AD2d 977 ).

1990Such testimony goes beyond the limited purpose of the exception, which is simply to show that a complaint was made (People v Deitsch, 237 NY 300 ; Baccio v People, 41 NY 265 ).

1990Such testimony goes beyond the limited purpose of the exception, which is simply to show that a complaint was made (People v Deitsch, 237 NY 300 ; Baccio v People, 41 NY 265 ).

1986We also find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant’s dual motion to consolidate the instant indictment with a prior indictment, and to sever his trial from that of codefendant Sutton’s (see, People v Lane, 56 NY2d 1, 7, 8-9 ; People v Simpkins, 110 AD2d 790 ; People v Napolitano, 106 AD2d 304 , affd 66 NY2d 852 ).

1986Despite the fact that the prior observations were had during an alleged robbery, the testimony did not fall outside the limited purpose exception to the exclusionary rule, that evidence of prior crimes may be used to prove identity (see, People v Molineux, 168 NY 264 ; People v Condon, 26 NY2d 139 ; People v Allweiss, 48 NY2d 40 ; People v Beam, 57 NY2d 241 ; cf. People v Fogel, 97 AD2d 445 ).

1986Despite the fact that the prior observations were had during an alleged robbery, the testimony did not fall outside the limited purpose exception to the exclusionary rule, that evidence of prior crimes may be used to prove identity (see, People v Molineux, 168 NY 264 ; People v Condon, 26 NY2d 139 ; People v Allweiss, 48 NY2d 40 ; People v Beam, 57 NY2d 241 ; cf. People v Fogel, 97 AD2d 445 ).

1986Despite the fact that the prior observations were had during an alleged robbery, the testimony did not fall outside the limited purpose exception to the exclusionary rule, that evidence of prior crimes may be used to prove identity (see, People v Molineux, 168 NY 264 ; People v Condon, 26 NY2d 139 ; People v Allweiss, 48 NY2d 40 ; People v Beam, 57 NY2d 241 ; cf. People v Fogel, 97 AD2d 445 ).

1986Despite the fact that the prior observations were had during an alleged robbery, the testimony did not fall outside the limited purpose exception to the exclusionary rule, that evidence of prior crimes may be used to prove identity (see, People v Molineux, 168 NY 264 ; People v Condon, 26 NY2d 139 ; People v Allweiss, 48 NY2d 40 ; People v Beam, 57 NY2d 241 ; cf. People v Fogel, 97 AD2d 445 ).

1986We also find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant’s dual motion to consolidate the instant indictment with a prior indictment, and to sever his trial from that of codefendant Sutton’s (see, People v Lane, 56 NY2d 1, 7, 8-9 ; People v Simpkins, 110 AD2d 790 ; People v Napolitano, 106 AD2d 304 , affd 66 NY2d 852 ).

1986We also find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant’s dual motion to consolidate the instant indictment with a prior indictment, and to sever his trial from that of codefendant Sutton’s (see, People v Lane, 56 NY2d 1, 7, 8-9 ; People v Simpkins, 110 AD2d 790 ; People v Napolitano, 106 AD2d 304 , affd 66 NY2d 852 ).

1986Despite the fact that the prior observations were had during an alleged robbery, the testimony did not fall outside the limited purpose exception to the exclusionary rule, that evidence of prior crimes may be used to prove identity (see, People v Molineux, 168 NY 264 ; People v Condon, 26 NY2d 139 ; People v Allweiss, 48 NY2d 40 ; People v Beam, 57 NY2d 241 ; cf. People v Fogel, 97 AD2d 445 ).

1978This was the position taken also in People v Epps ( 67 Misc 2d 907 ), where the Appellate Term of the First Department sustained the refusal of the Judge presiding at the preliminary examination to continue the hearing in order to compel the arresting officer to produce his memo book, for use in the cross-examination which was then in progress.

1971The automobile having been taken with permission for the limited purpose of a test drive and its license plates having been changed without the owner’s knowledge or permission, such obtaining of it (Penal Law, § 155.00, subd. 2) and such withholding beyond a reasonable time and distance classified the automobile as stolen property (Penal Law, §§ 155.35,155.05, subd. 1; cf. People v. Lammerts, 164 N. Y. 137, 144 ).