You are here: / / DEFENSE DID NOT OPEN THE DOOR TO HEARSAY EVIDENCE OF A CODEFENDANT’S...
,

DEFENSE DID NOT OPEN THE DOOR TO HEARSAY EVIDENCE OF A CODEFENDANT’S CONVICTION; CRITERIA FOR BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO HEARSAY RULE NOT MET; CONVICTIONS REVERSED.

The First Department, reversing the defendants’ fraud-related convictions, determined (1) the defense did not “open the door” to the admission of hearsay evidence that a nontestifying codefendant (Solomon) pled guilty in a related matter, and (2) the criteria for the business records exception to the hearsay rule were not met:

… [T]he inquiry whether a defendant opened the door to the admission of otherwise inadmissible evidence “is twofold — whether and to what extent, the evidence or argument said to open the door is incomplete and misleading, and what if any otherwise inadmissible evidence is reasonably necessary to correct the misleading impression” … .  * * *

A party seeking to introduce evidence under the exception must demonstrate that “each participant in the chain producing the record, from the initial declarant to the final entrant, [was] acting within the course of regular business conduct” when the record was made … . We find that although bank personnel were acting under a business duty when the record was created, the record fails to demonstrate that Solomon was acting under such a duty when he supplied the information at issue. People v Schlesinger Elec. Contrs., Inc., 2016 NY Slip Op 06742, 1st Dept 10-13-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (DEFENSE DID NOT OPEN THE DOOR TO HEARSAY EVIDENCE OF A CODEFENDANT’S CONVICTION; CRITERIA FOR BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO HEARSAY RULE NOT MET; CONVICTIONS REVERSED)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENSE DID NOT OPEN THE DOOR TO HEARSAY EVIDENCE OF A CODEFENDANT’S CONVICTION; CRITERIA FOR BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO HEARSAY RULE NOT MET; CONVICTIONS REVERSED)/HEARSAY (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENSE DID NOT OPEN THE DOOR TO HEARSAY EVIDENCE OF A CODEFENDANT’S CONVICTION; CRITERIA FOR BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO HEARSAY RULE NOT MET; CONVICTIONS REVERSED)/OPEN THE DOOR (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENSE DID NOT OPEN THE DOOR TO HEARSAY EVIDENCE OF A CODEFENDANT’S CONVICTION; CRITERIA FOR BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO HEARSAY RULE NOT MET; CONVICTIONS REVERSED)/BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO HEARSAY RULE (CRIMINAL LAW, CRITERIA FOR BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO HEARSAY RULE NOT MET; CONVICTIONS REVERSED)

You might also like
PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY A CABLE WHICH WHIPLASHED WHEN A TRUCK RAN INTO IT; THE INDUSTRIAL CODE PROVISION REQUIRING SAFETY MEASURES WHEN WORKING NEAR TRAFFIC APPLIED; THE LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).
NONSIGNATORY WHICH RECEIVED A DIRECT BENEFIT FROM AN AGREEMENT WITH AN ARBITRATION PROVISION IS SUBJECT TO ARBITRATION (FIRST DEPT).
QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE ADVERSE INTEREST EXCEPTION TO THE IN PARI DELICTO DEFENSE APPLIES IN THIS ACCOUNTANT MALPRACTICE CASE (FIRST DEPT). ​
PLAINTIFFS’ LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; PLAINTIFFS’ 2010 BREACH OF A CONDOMINIUM-SALE CONTRACT ACTION WAS DISMISSED ON STATUTE OF FRAUDS GROUNDS; WHEN A WRITTEN CONTRACT SUBSEQUENTLY SURFACED, DEFENDANT ATTORNEYS DID NOT MOVE TO RENEW, VACATE OR APPEAL THE ORDER (FIRST DEPT).
MUNICIPAL DEFENDANTS NOT LIABLE FOR INJURY CAUSED BY BICYCLE-RIDING IN PUBLIC PARK, DESPITE REGULATIONS PROHIBITING BICYCLE-RIDING; QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE DEFENDANT HIRED TO CARE FOR THE CHILD WHO STRUCK INFANT PLAINTIFF WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE CHILD’S FATHER (RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR) OR AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR; QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE DEFENDANT CARE-GIVER WAS NEGLIGENT IN SUPERVISING THE CHILD (SECOND DEPT).
Uniform Act to Secure Attendance of Witnesses from Without the State in Criminal Cases Allowed Colorado Court to Subpoena a Reporter for Purposes of Testifying About Her Confidential Sources in a Matter Related to the Aurora Movie-Theater Shootings
PLAINTIFF STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR VIOLATION OF LABOR LAW 193, IMPROPER DEDUCTIONS FROM WAGES, AND LABOR LAW 215, TERMINATION FOR COMPLAINING OF THE IMPROPER DEDUCTIONS (FIRST DEPT).
THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER WATER ON THE FLOOR RESULTED FROM A RECURRING LEAK WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN NOTICED BY THE NYC HOUSING AUTHORITY; THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THE ROOF-REPAIR CONTRACTORS HIRED BY THE HOUSING AUTHORITY LAUNCHED AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM; SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AWARDED TO THE HOUSING AUTHORITY IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE BUT WAS PROPERLY AWARDED TO THE CONTRACTORS (FIRST 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

NYC TAXI AND LIMOUSINE COMMISSION’S RULES RE: HYBRID AND WHEELCHAIR ACCESSIBLE... DISMISSAL OF ACTIONS STEMMING FROM THE MADOFF PONZI SCHEME AFFIRMED PURSUANT...