You are here: / / No Foundation Provided for Use of a Notarized Statement for Impeachment...
,

No Foundation Provided for Use of a Notarized Statement for Impeachment (As a Prior Inconsistent Statement)

The Second Department determined the trial court had properly prohibited the defense from cross-examining a complaining witness about a notarized statement the witness denied signing.  The court explained the foundation-requirements for admitting a prior inconsistent statement:

The trial court properly precluded the defendant from cross-examining one of the complaining witnesses regarding a notarized statement which she had denied signing, and for which the notary could not be located. “[T]here must be a proper foundation laid for the introduction of prior inconsistent statements of a witness. In order to prevent surprise and give the witness the first opportunity to explain any apparent inconsistency between his [or her] testimony at trial and his [or her] previous statements, he [or she] must first be questioned as to the time, place and substance of the prior statement” … . “If the witness does not admit that he [or she] signed the statement[ ], the genuineness of the signature can be proved by any one or in any legal way. Such proof enables the impeaching party to properly offer the paper in evidence as a part of his [or her] case or, with the permission of the court, at any other stage of the trial” … . Where, as here, the party seeking to admit the writing into evidence has not proven the genuineness of the signature, “the writing cannot be read to the jury, or, provided it can be produced, used as a basis for a cross-examination as to its contents until it is in evidence'” … . People v Haywood, 2015 NY Slip Op 00555, 2nd Dept 1-21-15

 

You might also like
Insufficient Break Between Unwarned Statement and Subsequent Warned Statement—All Statements Suppressed/Appellate Court Cannot Consider Argument Not Raised by the People at Trial and Not Considered by the Trial Court
SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE REQUIRED DEFENSE COUNSEL TO SEEK COURT APPROVAL BEFORE ALLOWING INVESTIGATORS OR OTHER EMPLOYEES ACCESS TO RECORDINGS (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE ACTUAL NOTICE OF THE SUMMONS WAS NOT RECEIVED IN TIME TO DEFEND THE ACTION, AND DID NOT PROVIDE A REASONABLE EXCUSE FOR THE DEFAULT; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO VACATE THE DEFAULT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE SELLERS OF A CONDOMINIUM FOR FRAUDULENTLY CONCEALING MOLD AND WATER DAMAGE IN THE CONDOMINIUM AND COMMON AREAS, THE COMPLAINT ALSO STATED A MALPRACTICE CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE BUYERS’ ATTORNEY (SECOND DEPT).
PROOF OF MAILING REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 NOT MET, BANK’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
FAMILY COURT IMPROPERLY DELEGATED TO FATHER THE COURT’S AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE MOTHER’S ACCESS TO THE CHILD (SECOND DEPT).
RELEASE SIGNED BY PLAINTIFF INDOOR ROCK CLIMBER INVALID PURSUANT TO GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW, COMPLAINT ALLEGED INJURY CAUSED BY CONCEALED DEFECT WHICH WOULD NOT BE COVERED BY THE ASSUMPTION OF RISK DOCTRINE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE “UNDUE INFLUENCE” OBJECTION TO PROBATE OF A WILL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).

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

Error for Prosecutor to Imply that Communicating with an Attorney Manifests... Criteria for Restarting the Statute of Limitations by Acknowledging a Debt Explained...