You are here: / / Preservation of Error, DNA Expert, Confrontation Clause.
, ,

Preservation of Error, DNA Expert, Confrontation Clause.

Defendant’s claim that a DNA analyst’s expert testimony violated the Confrontation Clause because it was based on reports made by non-testifying witnesses was rejected, principally because the claim was deemed unpreserved.  There is a substantive discussion of preservation requirements. The Court, however, noted that the Court of Appeals held a similar DNA report was nontestimonial for Confrontation Clause purposes.  People v Rios, 7651, Ind. 1037/08 First Dept. 1-15-13.

 

You might also like
Judicial Notice and Collateral Estoppel Re: Philippine Law and a Philippine Court Order Improperly Applied—Related Conspiracy Conviction Vacated/Emails and Newspaper Articles, Although Hearsay, Properly Admitted
NON-MANDATORY STANDARDS WHICH ARE GENERALLY ACCEPTED CONSTITUTE SOME EVIDENCE OF NEGLIGENCE, EVIDENCE OF SIMILAR ACCIDENTS AT OTHER SUBWAY STATIONS PROPERLY ADMITTED IN THIS SUBWAY-PLATFORM GAP SLIP AND FALL CASE (FIRST DEPT).
THE TERMS ‘EVENT OF DEFAULT’ AND ‘DEFAULT’ WHICH APPEARED IN TWO DIFFERENT SECTIONS OF THE CONTRACT WERE DEEMED TO MEAN THE SAME THING, BECAUSE THE TERMS WERE DEEMED SYNONYMOUS PLAINTIFF DID NOT MEET ALL THE CONDITIONS PRECEDENT FOR STANDING TO SUE, COMPLAINT PROPERLY DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF IN THIS NEGLIGENT-HIRING ACTION AGAINST THE HOSPITAL WHICH EMPLOYED A DOCTOR WHO ALLEGEDLY SEXUALLY ASSAULTED HER AND OTHER PATIENTS SOUGHT DISCOVERY; THE IDENTITIES OF THE OTHER ASSAULTED PATIENTS WERE NOT PROTECTED BY THE DOCTOR-PATIENT PRIVILEGE; PARTY STATEMENTS WERE NOT PROTECTED BY THE QUALITY ASSURANCE PRIVILEGE; AND PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO THE NAMES OF THE DOCTOR’S COWORKERS (FIRST DEPT).
WIFE ENTITLED TO A PERCENTAGE OF HUSBAND’S ENHANCED EARNING CAPACITY BY ENABLING HUSBAND’S LONG WORKING HOURS AND HIS STUDY FOR MEDICAL BOARD EXAMS.
THE COMPLAINT SUFFICIENTLY STATED FACTS AMOUNTING TO A BREACH-OF-FIDUCIARY-DUTY CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT REAL ESTATE BROKER, DESPITE PLAINTIFF-SELLER’S CONSENT TO THE BROKER’S “DUAL AGENCY;” IT WAS ALLEGED THE BROKER WAS AWARE THE PROPERTY WAS TO BE SUBDIVIDED AND SOLD BY THE BUYERS FOR THREE TIMES THE PRICE AND SHE WOULD BE THE BUYERS’ BROKER FOR THE SUBSEQUENT SALES (FIRST DEPT). ​
SUPREME COURT DID NOT HAVE SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION OVER PLAINTIFF’S HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT CLAIMS; THE CONDUCT OCCURRED WHEN PLAINTIFF WAS NOT PHYSICALLY IN NEW YORK AND DID NOT HAVE ANY IMPACT ON THE TERMS, CONDITIONS OR EXTENT OF HER EMPLOYMENT WITHIN NEW YORK; THE FACTS WERE NOT DESCRIBED (FIRST DEPT).
ARBITRABLE CLAIMS WHICH ARE INEXTRICABLY TIED TO CLAIMS ALREADY IN COURT SHOULD BE LITIGATED IN COURT.

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Acceptance of Settlement Offer Not Communicated to Opposing Party or Insurer—No... Right to Call and Question Witnesses.