You are here: / / ANONYMOUS 911 CALL WAS NOT ADMISSIBLE AS AN EXCITED UTTERANCE OR AS A PRESENT...
,

ANONYMOUS 911 CALL WAS NOT ADMISSIBLE AS AN EXCITED UTTERANCE OR AS A PRESENT SENSE IMPRESSION; CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the recording of the 911 call was not admissible as an excited utterance or as a present sense impression:

… [T]he People did not present sufficient facts from which it could be inferred that the anonymous caller personally observed the incident … . The anonymous caller merely stated to the 911 operator that “[s]omebody just got shot on East 19th and Albemarle” and that it “was a guy with crutches. He started to shoot.” Nothing in these brief, conclusory statements, which were made at least five minutes after the shooting occurred, suggested that the caller was reporting something that he saw, as opposed to something he was told … . Moreover, although there was testimony that the call was made from a payphone located in the vicinity of the shooting, the People did not demonstrate that the payphone was situated outdoors or in a place where the actual site of the shooting would be visible. Accordingly, the statement did not qualify as an “excited utterance” … .

For similar reasons, the declarations of the 911 caller were not admissible under the “present sense impression” exception to the hearsay rule. ” Present sense impression’ declarations . . . are descriptions of events made by a person who is perceiving the event as it is unfolding” … . Here, as just explained, the People failed to demonstrate that the anonymous caller was describing events that he actually perceived. People v Thelismond, 2020 NY Slip Op 01368, Second Dept 2-26-20

 

You might also like
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON PLAINTIFFS’ LABOR LAW 240(1), 241(6) AND 200 CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Plaintiff Who Fell From Scaffolding Which Did Not Have Safety Rails Entitled to Summary Judgment on His Labor Law 240(1) Cause of Action
CLAIMANT STRUCK A DOWNED LIGHT POLE WHICH HAD ROTTED BELOW GROUND, STATE DID NOT HAVE ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION.
THE EVIDENCE RELIED UPON BY COUNTY COURT TO DENY DEFENDANT’S RESENTENCING PURSUANT TO THE DRUG LAW REFORM ACT (DLRA) WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO OVERCOME THE STATUTORY PRESUMPTION FAVORING RESENTENCING (SECOND DEPT).
Plaintiff Barred from Recovery Against Special Employer by Exclusivity Provisions of Workers’ Compensation Law
Evidence of Photo-Array Identification Properly Allowed to Counter Inference Line-Up Was Suggestive (Defendant Restrained in Line-Up)
A MOTION TO MODIFY THE CUSTODY PROVISIONS IN A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, WHERE THERE ARE CONTESTED FACTS, SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED WITHOUT A FULL HEARING (SECOND DEPT). ​
QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHO HAD THE GREEN LIGHT AND WHETHER DEFENDANT DRIVER SAW WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SEEN PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS INTERSECTION TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE (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

THE WAIVER OF APPEAL WAS NOT KNOWINGLY, VOLUNTARILY AND INTELLIGENTLY MADE (SECOND... PLAINTIFF PROPERLY ALLOWED TO AMEND THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE COMPLAINT AFTER...