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
BY ARGUING HE DID NOT KNOW THE WEAPON AND AMMUNITION WERE IN THE TRUCK HE WAS DRIVING, DEFENDANT PUT HIS STATE OF MIND IN ISSUE; THEREFORE THE EVIDENCE HE HAD TWICE BEFORE BEEN IN THE POSSESSION OF FIREARMS, ONCE ON A PLANE AND ONCE IN A VEHICLE, WAS ADMISSIBLE UNDER MOLINEUX (SECOND DEPT).
THE DEFENSE FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE TO A JUROR WHO SAID SHE WOULD EXPECT THAT THE DEFENSE WOULD PRESENT EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
BECAUSE FAMILY COURT HAD EXCLUSIVE AND CONTINUING JURISDICTION OVER THIS CUSTODY CASE, MOTHER’S PETITION TO MODIFY CUSTODY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SUMMARILY DISMISSED BECAUSE FATHER AND CHILD RESIDE OUT-OF-STATE (SECOND DEPT).
Custody Properly Awarded to Non-Parents—Criteria Explained
3/4 Inch Depression Obscured by Puddle of Water Not Trivial As a Matter of Law
THERE WAS VIDEO EVIDENCE OF THE SLIP AND FALL, PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE OF THE UNLAWFUL DRAIN PIPE WHICH WAS THE SOURCE OF THE ICE ON THE SIDEWALK, AND EXPERT EVIDENCE; DEFENDANTS’ MERE HOPE THAT DISCOVERY WOULD REVEAL EVIDENCE TO DEFEAT PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DID NOT SUPPORT THE DENIAL OF THE MOTION AS PREMATURE (SECOND DEPT).
THE ACTION, WHICH STEMMED FROM PLAINTIFF’S BEING DROPPED IN THE DELIVERY ROOM IMMEDIATELY AFTER BIRTH, SOUNDED IN MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, NOT NEGLIGENCE, AND WAS THEREFORE TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT).
Online Promotion Which Offered a Coupon to Persons Who Provided His or Her Email Address Did Not Constitute an “Offer” Which Could Be “Accepted” to Create a Contract/In Light of the Disclaimers the Promotion Was Not “Deceptive” and Plaintiff Suffered No “Actual Injury” within the Meaning of the General Business Law

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 © 2024 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Twenty-Day Time-Limit for Making an Application to Stay Arbitration Starts When... Conviction Reversed Because Court Failed to Inquire About the Reasons for Defendant’s...