Defendant successfully sought removal of his first assigned attorney, and counsel's appointed successor had an apparent conflict with one of the People's scheduled witnesses, prompting County Court to assign a third attorney to represent defendant. Nor do we discern any error in County Court's decision to admit into evidence the three audio recordings of the controlled buys. “It is well settled that [a]dmissibility of [a] tape-recorded conversation requires proof of the accuracy or authenticity of the tape by clear and convincing evidence establishing that the offered evidence is genuine and that there has been no tampering with it” (People v. Ebron, 90 A.D.3d 1243, 1245, 938 N.Y.S.2d 352 [2011], lvs. denied 19 N.Y.3d 863, 866, 947 N.Y.S.2d 412, 414, 970 N.E.2d 435, 437 [2012] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see People v. Galunas, 107 A.D.3d 1034, 1034, 966 N.Y.S.2d 280 [2013] ). Such admissibility may be established by, among other things, “the testimony of a witness to the conversation or to its recording, or by evidence identifying the speakers and establishing the chain of custody of the recording and its unchanged condition” (People v. Galunas, 107 A.D.3d at 1034, 966 N.Y.S.2d 280 [internal quotation marks and citation omitted] ).
We find no error with County Court's challenged evidentiary rulings. With respect to the admission of the audio recording from the CI's recording device, the People properly authenticated the recording, identified the voices thereon and established that it was genuine and had not been tampered with (see People v Ely, 68 N.Y.2d 520, 527 [1986]; People v Lind, 133 A.D.3d 914, 915 [2015], lv denied 27 N.Y.3d 1153 [2016]; People v Galunas, 107 A.D.3d 1034, 1034 [2013]). Although certain portions of the audio are difficult to understand, a transcript of the recording was used by the jury for the limited purpose of following along at trial, and there is no dispute that the transcript accurately reflected the audible portions of the recorded conversations.
We find no error with County Court's challenged evidentiary rulings. With respect to the admission of the audio recording from the CI's recording device, the People properly authenticated the recording, identified the voices thereon and established that it was genuine and had not been tampered with (see People v Ely, 68 NY2d 520, 527 [1986]; People v Lind, 133 AD3d 914, 915 [2015], lv denied 27 NY3d 1153 [2016]; People v Galunas, 107 AD3d 1034, 1034 [2013]). Although certain portions of the audio are difficult to understand, a transcript of the recording was used by the jury for the limited purpose of following along at trial, and there is no dispute that the transcript accurately reflected the audible portions of the recorded conversations.
DECISION AND ORDER ON MOTION Motion for writ of error coram nobis to vacate decision and order of this Court in People v Galunas (107 AD3d 1034 [2013]). Upon the papers filed in support of the motion, and no papers having been filed in opposition thereto, it is
Little—the roommate who summoned 911—testified that she was familiar with Stokes' voice and recognized it on the recording, an inmate who assisted defendant in placing the call testified that he did so, and defendant himself admitted that he made the call and that the voices on the recording were those of Stokes and himself. Accordingly, the recording was properly authenticated ( see People v. Galunas, 107 A.D.3d 1034, 1034–1035, 966 N.Y.S.2d 280 [2013];People v. Heard, 92 A.D.3d 1142, 1144–1145, 938 N.Y.S.2d 672 [2012],lv. denied18 N.Y.3d 994, 945 N.Y.S.2d 649, 968 N.E.2d 1005 [2012] );People v. Ebron, 90 A.D.3d 1243, 1245, 938 N.Y.S.2d 352 [2011],lvs. denied19 N.Y.3d 863, 866, 947 N.Y.S.2d 412, 414, 970 N.E.2d 435, 437 (2012).