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
THE REFEREE’S REPORT WAS BASED ON BUSINESS RECORDS WHICH WERE NOT PRODUCED RENDERING THE AFFIDAVIT HEARSAY; THE REPORT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF OFFERED DIFFERENT EXPLANATIONS OF THE CAUSE OF HIS FALL, COURT HELD PLAINTIFF COULD NOT IDENTIFY THE CAUSE OF HIS FALL, REQUIRING DISMISSAL (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT BAR NOT LIABLE FOR INJURIES AND DEATH OF PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT RESULTING FROM AN ALTERCATION ON A PUBLIC ROAD IN FRONT OF THE BAR, BAR EXERCISED NO CONTROL OVER THE AREA WHERE THE ALTERCATION OCCURRED (SECOND DEPT).
Criteria for Causes of Action Under Labor Law 200 and Common Law Negligence (Where the Methods or Materials of the Work Are Alleged to Be the Cause of the Injury) Explained
THE PROCESS SERVER’S AFFIDAVIT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE PERSON SERVED WAS AN AGENT OF DEFENDANT CORPORATION; CLERK’S JUDGMENT VACATED (SECOND DEPT).
GRIEVANCE FILED AGAINST SCHOOL DISTRICT REGARDING THE DISTRICT’S STARTING A PLENARY ACTION AGAINST A TEACHER UNDER A FAITHLESS SERVANT THEORY WAS ARBITRABLE UNDER THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT.
THE DEFENDANT WAS NOT PRODUCED FOR SENTENCING; HIS RIGHT TO BE PRESENT AT SENTENCING WAS THEREFORE VIOLATED, REQUIRING REMITTAL FOR RESENTENCING (SECOND DEPT).
Open and Obvious Condition Precluded Slip and Fall Suit

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...