You are here: / / IT WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR TO ADMIT A WITNESS’S GRAND JURY TESTIMONY,...
,

IT WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR TO ADMIT A WITNESS’S GRAND JURY TESTIMONY, THE WITNESS’S CLAIM HE COULD NOT REMEMBER THE EVENTS WAS NOT SO DAMAGING TO THE PEOPLE’S CASE AS TO ALLOW THE GRAND JURY EVIDENCE FOR IMPEACHMENT PURPOSES (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined that admitting the grand jury testimony of a witness was reversible error. The witness’s testimony at trial that he couldn’t remember the events was not so damaging to the People’s case as to justify impeachment:

The People concede that the trial court erred in admitting the grand jury testimony of a witness indicating that defendant fired an errant shot that struck a bystander as defendant and a companion fled from another group following a verbal altercation. Specifically, the People acknowledge that the testimony was not admissible under the past recollection recorded exception to the hearsay rule, because the witness did not testify at trial that the grand jury testimony “correctly represented his knowledge and recollection when made” … , and was not admissible for impeachment purposes under CPL 60.35 because the witness’s trial testimony that he could not remember the relevant events did not “affirmatively damage[] the case of the party calling him” … . People v Folk, 2019 NY Slip Op 04321, First Dept 6-4-19

 

You might also like
PLAINTIFF MODEL SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED PHOTOSHOOTS DONE WHEN SHE WAS 16 AND 17 FOR A SUNTANNING-PRODUCT MARKETING CAMPAIGN CONSTITUTED “SEXUAL PERFORMANCES” TRIGGERING THE EXTENDED STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN THE CHILD VICTIMS ACT (FIRST DEPT).
SELF-EXECUTING CONDITIONAL DISCOVERY ORDER BECAME ABSOLUTE UPON NON-COMPLIANCE; A MOTION TO VACATE, NOT AN APPEAL, IS THE PROPER PROCEDURE TO CONTEST THE ORDER ON THE GROUND OF EXCUSABLE DEFAULT; DEFENDANTS TOOK NO ACTION TO AVOID THE DEFAULT (FIRST DEPT).
THE WRENCH WHICH FELL AND STRUCK PLAINTIFF COULD HAVE BEEN TETHERED TO THE WORKER WHO DROPPED IT; PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION; PLAINTIFF NEED NOT SUBMIT AN EXPERT AFFIDAVIT (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF STEPPED IN A HOLE WHEN DELIVERING TILES TO THE WORK SITE; HE WAS PERFORMING WORK “NECESSARY AND INCIDENTAL” TO THE INSTALLATION OF THE TILES AND THEREFORE WAS PROTECTED BY LABOR LAW 240(1); A SUBCONTRACTOR WILL NOT BE LIABLE UNDER THE LABOR LAW AS A STATUTORY AGENT OF THE OWNER OR GENERAL CONTRACTOR UNLESS THE SUBCONTRACTOR HAS AUTHORITY OVER THE AREA WHERE PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED (FIRST DEPT).
QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE OWNER OF A DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SHELTER AND THE SECURITY COMPANY HIRED BY THE SHELTER WERE LIABLE FOR THE SHOOTING OF A CHILD JUST OUTSIDE THE GATE OF THE SHELTER, THE CHILD WAS AN INTENDED BENEFICIARY OF THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE SHELTER AND THE SECURITY COMPANY (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF ALLEGED HE WAS PROVIDED WITH A DEFECTIVE LADDER, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE LADDER WAS A DANGEROUS CONDITION CREATED BY DEFENDANT OR OF WHICH DEFENDANT HAD NOTICE, LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED.
THE THREAT MADE BY DEFENDANT WAS PERSONAL IN NATURE AND WAS NOT DIRECTED AT THE CIVILIAN POPULATION WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE TERRORISM STATUTE (PENAL LAW 490.20); THE CONVICTION WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY LEGALLY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE AND WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (FIRST DEPT). ​
USING A NEW YORK VIRTUAL LAW OFFICE PROGRAM (VLOP) ONLY AS A MAILING ADDRESS AND AS AN AGENT TO ACCEPT SERVICE DOES NOT SATISFY THE REQUIREMENT THAT AN ATTORNEY PRACTICING IN NEW YORK HAVE A PHYSICAL OFFICE IN NEW YORK, HOWEVER THE ACTION BROUGHT BY THE VLOP ATTORNEY IS NOT A NULLITY AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (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

THE CANDIDATE SIGNED THE SUBSCRIBING WITNESS STATEMENT WHICH INDICATED EACH... OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD COULD NOT HAVE FORESEEN THAT INFANT PLAINTIFF WOULD...