49 New York opinions name it 9 courts 1863–2023 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
People v. Browngreen2 sentences2023Thus, 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]). 2013In any event, the contents of the police report were admissible under the present sense exception to the hearsay rule, as they were sufficiently corroborated by respondent’s testimony (see Jara v Salinas-Ramirez, 65 AD3d 933 [1st Dept 2009]; People v Brown, 80 NY2d 729 [1993]). | 2 | 10 |
Reilly v. Reidgreen2 sentences1996In Matter of Reilly v Reid ( 45 NY2d 24, 28, 29 [1978]), it was observed that the "policy bases for res judicata, in the sense of claim preclusion, do not permit easy definition of the 'same cause of action’ ”, the Court there concluding that differences in legal theory generally will not "permit relitigation of claims based on the same gravamen”. 1985Center, 93 AD2d 449, 454-456 , affd 61 NY2d 861 ) where the court stated the following: “Thus, res judicata in the sense of claim preclusion ‘involves the question of whether a plaintiff’s present claim, as distinguished from discrete issues previously litigated, has been extinguished by a final adjudication in a prior proceeding’ (Brown v Lockwood, supra, p 735; Matter of Reilly v Reid, 45 NY2d 24, 27 ), in which the parties, or those in privity with them, were the same as in the action presently before the court (see Matter of American Ins. | 1 | 5 |
People v. Cantavegreen1 sentence2023Thus, 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]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Narayangreen1 sentence2015This Court has applied the common sense principle that if defense counsel is present to bring an error to the trial court's attention, counsel must register a protest where the error, if called to the court's attention, "would afford the trial court opportunity promptly to rescind any directive violative of the defendant's right of access to counsel or otherwise to cure the error" (People v Narayan, 54 NY2d 106, 112 [1981]). | 1 | 1 |
Rodney v. Town of Brookhavengreen1 sentence2001In an action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained in an accident, the oral statements of unidentified eyewitnesses are admissible pursuant to the present sense exception to the hearsay rule, if such statements are made “substantially contemporaneously” with the observation (People v Brown, 80 NY2d 729, 734 ; see, People v Smith, 267 AD2d 407 ), and such statements are “sufficiently corroborated by other evidence” (Rodney v Town of Brookhaven, 228 AD2d 486 ; see, Perez v Exel Logistics, 278 AD2d 213 ; Solovyev v Smith, 187 Misc 2d 400 ). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Smithgreen1 sentence2001In an action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained in an accident, the oral statements of unidentified eyewitnesses are admissible pursuant to the present sense exception to the hearsay rule, if such statements are made “substantially contemporaneously” with the observation (People v Brown, 80 NY2d 729, 734 ; see, People v Smith, 267 AD2d 407 ), and such statements are “sufficiently corroborated by other evidence” (Rodney v Town of Brookhaven, 228 AD2d 486 ; see, Perez v Exel Logistics, 278 AD2d 213 ; Solovyev v Smith, 187 Misc 2d 400 ). | 1 | 1 |
Perez v. Exel Logistics, Inc.green2 sentences2001In an action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained in an accident, the oral statements of unidentified eyewitnesses are admissible pursuant to the present sense exception to the hearsay rule, if such statements are made “substantially contemporaneously” with the observation (People v Brown, 80 NY2d 729, 734 ; see, People v Smith, 267 AD2d 407 ), and such statements are “sufficiently corroborated by other evidence” (Rodney v Town of Brookhaven, 228 AD2d 486 ; see, Perez v Exel Logistics, 278 AD2d 213 ; Solovyev v Smith, 187 Misc 2d 400 ). 2001The statement of an unidentified eyewitness, immediately upon observation of the license plate number of the offending vehicle minutes after the accident, may constitute competent evidence (see, Perez v Exel Logistics, supra) if corroborated by “extrinsic proof’ (Solovyev v Smith, supra, at 402). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Sanchezgreen1 sentence1998That the audiotape corroborated the testimony of the apprehending officers, who were subject to cross-examination by the defense, did not render the audiotape inadmissible (supra; see also, People v Sanchez, 216 AD2d 207 , lv denied 87 NY2d 850 ). | 1 | 1 |
Schuylkill Fuel Corp. v. B. & C. Nieberg Realty Corp.green1 sentence1996The classic definition of res judicata, in the sense of claim preclusion, is that formulated by Chief Judge Cardozo in Schuylkill Fuel Corp. v Nieberg Realty Corp. ( 250 NY 304, 306-307 [1929]), wherein he stated that a "judgment in one action is conclusive in a later one * * * when the two causes of action have such a measure of identity that a different judgment in the second would destroy or impair rights or interests established by the first”. | 1 | 1 |
Booth v. Stategreen1 sentence1993In 1986, at least 28 States had passed legislation codifying the present sense impression exception (see, Booth v State, 306 Md 313, 321, 508 A2d 976, 979 [1986]). . | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Watsongreen | 1 | 1 |
People v. Lukegreen1 sentence1992(See, People v Sanders, 56 NY2d 51, 64 [1982]; see also, People v Brown, 70 NY2d 513, 518-519 [1987]; People v Caviness, 38 NY2d 227, 231 [1975].) Federal Rules of Evidence, rule 803 (1) defines the present sense exception to the hearsay rule as follows: "A statement describing or explaining an event or condition made while the declarant was perceiving the event or condition, or immediately thereafter.” Although New York courts have recognized this exception and have adopted the Federal definition of the term, State cases do not delineate the parameters of what constitutes a "present sense.” ( | 1 | 1 |
| Abdella v. Ne Jamegreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Cavinessgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Sandersgreen | 1 | 1 |
People v. Browngreen1 sentence1992(See, People v Sanders, 56 NY2d 51, 64 [1982]; see also, People v Brown, 70 NY2d 513, 518-519 [1987]; People v Caviness, 38 NY2d 227, 231 [1975].) Federal Rules of Evidence, rule 803 (1) defines the present sense exception to the hearsay rule as follows: "A statement describing or explaining an event or condition made while the declarant was perceiving the event or condition, or immediately thereafter.” Although New York courts have recognized this exception and have adopted the Federal definition of the term, State cases do not delineate the parameters of what constitutes a "present sense.” ( | 1 | 1 |
| People v. O'Ramagreen | 1 | 1 |
| Illinois v. Gatesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. De Bourgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Gramatan Home Investors Corp. v. Lopezgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Scott v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. . Palmergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
People v. Kerngreen1 sentence1993Other courts have cursorily mentioned the present sense exception, but have declined to admit evidence under the rule (see, People v Smith, 162 AD2d 736 ; Loschiavo v Port Auth., 86 AD2d 624, 625 , affd on other grounds 58 NY2d 1040 ; People v Jardin, 154 Misc 2d 172 ; People v Nalty, 141 Misc 2d 90 ; People v Selassie, 140 Misc 2d 616 ; but see, People v Kern, 149 AD2d 187, 237-238 [error, if any, of trial court in admitting 911 tape under present sense exception was harmless]). . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Jara v. Salinas-Ramirez
neutral
2 sentences2013In any event, the contents of the police report were admissible under the present sense exception to the hearsay rule, as they were sufficiently corroborated by respondent’s testimony (see Jara v Salinas-Ramirez, 65 AD3d 933 [1st Dept 2009]; People v Brown, 80 NY2d 729 [1993]). 2013In any event, the contents of the police report were admissible under the present sense exception to the hearsay rule, as they were sufficiently corroborated by respondent’s testimony (see Jara v Salinas-Ramirez, 65 AD3d 933 [1st Dept 2009]; People v Brown, 80 NY2d 729 [1993]). | 2 | 2013–2013 |
People v. Vasquez
green
2 sentences2003Since a 911 call was not substantially contemporaneous with the events related, a tape recording of the call was improperly admitted under the present sense exception to the hearsay rule (see People v Vasquez, 88 NY2d 561, 578 ). 2001Contrary to the court’s determination, the 911 calls were “recalled or recast description [s] of events that were observed in the recent past” and thus the tápe recording of those calls was not admissible under the present sense exception to the hearsay rule (People v Vasquez, 88 NY2d 561, 575 ). | 2 | 2001–2003 |
People v. Buie
green
2 sentences1998The court properly admitted the audiotape of the police chase of defendant that led to his arrest, under the present sense exception to the hearsay rule, and as probative of issues raised by defendant regarding identification and credibility of the apprehending officers (see, People v Buie, 86 NY2d 501 ). 1996A recent Court of Appeals case allowed the present sense exception to apply, even though the witness was available to testify, and in fact, the witness did testify (People v Buie, 86 NY2d 501 ). | 2 | 1996–1998 |
Coates v. City of Cincinnati
green
2 sentences1983(Coates v City of Cincinnati, 402 US 611 .) Here the Department has promulgated a regulation which clearly sets forth that no common show license shall be issued for an establishment within 200 feet of an elementary or secondary public or private school. 1974This criminal provision is vague, ‘ ‘ not in the sense that it requires a person to conform his conduct to an imprecise but comprehensible normative standard, but rather in the sense that no standard of conduct is specified at all.” (Coates v. City of Cincinnati, 402 U. S. 611, 614 .) “Such a provision simply has no core. | 2 | 1974–1983 |
Bates v. Stanton
neutral
2 sentences1926In Bates v. Stanton ( 1 Duer, 79 ) it was said: “ It is a mistake to suppose that the term parties, in the sense of the rule which renders a prior judgment conclusive upon those who sustain that character, is restricted to those who are parties upon the record. 1863Stanton, 1 Duer, 79 .) The term “ parties” includes all who have a direct interest in the subject-matter of the suit, and a right to make a defence or control the proceedings. | 2 | 1863–1926 |
People v. Umali
green
1 sentence2015We reaffirmed that principle in People v Umali ( 10 NY3d 417 , [2008]). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
People v. Kello
green
1 sentence2003However, the error was harmless (see People v Kello, 96 NY2d 740, 743-744 ). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Solovyev v. Smith
neutral
1 sentence2001In an action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained in an accident, the oral statements of unidentified eyewitnesses are admissible pursuant to the present sense exception to the hearsay rule, if such statements are made “substantially contemporaneously” with the observation (People v Brown, 80 NY2d 729, 734 ; see, People v Smith, 267 AD2d 407 ), and such statements are “sufficiently corroborated by other evidence” (Rodney v Town of Brookhaven, 228 AD2d 486 ; see, Perez v Exel Logistics, 278 AD2d 213 ; Solovyev v Smith, 187 Misc 2d 400 ). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
People v. Little
neutral
1 sentence2001Nevertheless, the error is harmless because the evidence of defendant’s guilt is overwhelming and there is no significant probability that defendant otherwise would have been acquitted ( see, People v Little, 278 AD2d 863 , lv denied 96 NY2d 802 ). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
People v. Mieles
neutral
1 sentence1998In any event, given that the tape was sufficiently corroborated, it was clearly admissible under the present sense exception to the hearsay rule (see, People v Brown, 80 NY2d 729, 734 ; People v Mieles, 226 AD2d 397, 398 ). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
People v. Orth
green
1 sentence1995It contained a spontaneous description of events that occurred contemporaneously with the caller’s observations, and the description was sufficiently corroborated by the testimony of the other witnesses (see, People v Brown, 80 NY2d 729 ; cf., People v Orth, 201 AD2d 510 ). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Loschiavo v. Port Authority
green
1 sentence1993Other courts have cursorily mentioned the present sense exception, but have declined to admit evidence under the rule (see, People v Smith, 162 AD2d 736 ; Loschiavo v Port Auth., 86 AD2d 624, 625 , affd on other grounds 58 NY2d 1040 ; People v Jardin, 154 Misc 2d 172 ; People v Nalty, 141 Misc 2d 90 ; People v Selassie, 140 Misc 2d 616 ; but see, People v Kern, 149 AD2d 187, 237-238 [error, if any, of trial court in admitting 911 tape under present sense exception was harmless]). . | 1 | 1993–1993 |
People v. Selassie
green
1 sentence1993Other courts have cursorily mentioned the present sense exception, but have declined to admit evidence under the rule (see, People v Smith, 162 AD2d 736 ; Loschiavo v Port Auth., 86 AD2d 624, 625 , affd on other grounds 58 NY2d 1040 ; People v Jardin, 154 Misc 2d 172 ; People v Nalty, 141 Misc 2d 90 ; People v Selassie, 140 Misc 2d 616 ; but see, People v Kern, 149 AD2d 187, 237-238 [error, if any, of trial court in admitting 911 tape under present sense exception was harmless]). . | 1 | 1993–1993 |
People v. Nalty
green
1 sentence1993Other courts have cursorily mentioned the present sense exception, but have declined to admit evidence under the rule (see, People v Smith, 162 AD2d 736 ; Loschiavo v Port Auth., 86 AD2d 624, 625 , affd on other grounds 58 NY2d 1040 ; People v Jardin, 154 Misc 2d 172 ; People v Nalty, 141 Misc 2d 90 ; People v Selassie, 140 Misc 2d 616 ; but see, People v Kern, 149 AD2d 187, 237-238 [error, if any, of trial court in admitting 911 tape under present sense exception was harmless]). . | 1 | 1993–1993 |
People v. Jardin
green
1 sentence1993Other courts have cursorily mentioned the present sense exception, but have declined to admit evidence under the rule (see, People v Smith, 162 AD2d 736 ; Loschiavo v Port Auth., 86 AD2d 624, 625 , affd on other grounds 58 NY2d 1040 ; People v Jardin, 154 Misc 2d 172 ; People v Nalty, 141 Misc 2d 90 ; People v Selassie, 140 Misc 2d 616 ; but see, People v Kern, 149 AD2d 187, 237-238 [error, if any, of trial court in admitting 911 tape under present sense exception was harmless]). . | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Loschiavo v. Port Auth. of New York & New Jersey
green
1 sentence1993Other courts have cursorily mentioned the present sense exception, but have declined to admit evidence under the rule (see, People v Smith, 162 AD2d 736 ; Loschiavo v Port Auth., 86 AD2d 624, 625 , affd on other grounds 58 NY2d 1040 ; People v Jardin, 154 Misc 2d 172 ; People v Nalty, 141 Misc 2d 90 ; People v Selassie, 140 Misc 2d 616 ; but see, People v Kern, 149 AD2d 187, 237-238 [error, if any, of trial court in admitting 911 tape under present sense exception was harmless]). . | 1 | 1993–1993 |
People v. Smith
neutral
1 sentence1993Other courts have cursorily mentioned the present sense exception, but have declined to admit evidence under the rule (see, People v Smith, 162 AD2d 736 ; Loschiavo v Port Auth., 86 AD2d 624, 625 , affd on other grounds 58 NY2d 1040 ; People v Jardin, 154 Misc 2d 172 ; People v Nalty, 141 Misc 2d 90 ; People v Selassie, 140 Misc 2d 616 ; but see, People v Kern, 149 AD2d 187, 237-238 [error, if any, of trial court in admitting 911 tape under present sense exception was harmless]). . | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| Pace v. Perk green | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| Lukowsky v. Shalit green | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| People v. Brown neutral | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| People v. Leyva green | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| Klien v. Klien green | 1 | 1990–1990 |
| Kret v. Brookdale Hospital Medical Center green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| Jordan Kret v. Brookdale Hospital Medical Center green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| Brown v. Lockwood green | 1 | 1983–1983 |
| Brown v. . Cleveland Trust Co. green | 1 | 1983–1983 |
| Siegel v. Kranis green | 1 | 1982–1982 |
| Gilbert Properties, Inc. v. Millstein green | 1 | 1982–1982 |
| Sandstrom v. Montana green | 1 | 1980–1980 |
| People v. Benzinger green | 1 | 1980–1980 |
| Gowan v. Tully green | 1 | 1980–1980 |
| Julien J. Studley, Inc. v. Lefrak green | 1 | 1980–1980 |
| Weiner v. Greyhound Bus Lines, Inc. green | 1 | 1978–1978 |
| New York State Labor Relations Board v. Holland Laundry, Inc. green | 1 | 1978–1978 |
| Davis v. Davis green | 1 | 1977–1977 |
| Smith v. Goguen green | 1 | 1974–1974 |
| Shapiro v. Shapiro neutral | 1 | 1969–1969 |
| United States of America Ex Rel. Edward F. Mahoney v. J. E. Lavallee, as Warden of Auburn State Prison, Auburn, New York green | 1 | 1969–1969 |
| Jacques v. New Jersey green | 1 | 1969–1969 |
| Johnson v. Zerbst green | 1 | 1956–1956 |
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.