People v. Hudson

13 Citing cases

  1. People v. Gibson

    199 A.D.3d 1335 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021)

    The Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision is a public officer who is required to collect the names of inmates, the nature and duration of their sentences, and the duration of their punishments (see Correction Law §§ 29, 119 ). Thus, the certificate of incarceration with the seal of DOCCS qualified for admission under the common-law public documents exception to the hearsay rule (seeSmith , 258 A.D.2d at 249, 697 N.Y.S.2d 783 ; People v. Hudson , 237 A.D.2d 943, 944, 655 N.Y.S.2d 219 [4th Dept. 1997], lv denied 89 N.Y.2d 1094, 660 N.Y.S.2d 388, 682 N.E.2d 989 [1997] ). Finally, inasmuch as there was a prior finding that defendant's 2002 conviction is a predicate violent felony conviction, he could not challenge that finding in the subsequent proceeding to adjudicate him a persistent violent felony offender (see CPL 400.15 [8] ; People v. Wilson , 231 A.D.2d 912, 913, 648 N.Y.S.2d 67 [4th Dept. 1996], lv denied 89 N.Y.2d 868, 653 N.Y.S.2d 291, 675 N.E.2d 1244 [1996] ).

  2. People v. Gibson

    No. 2021-06232 (N.Y. App. Div. Nov. 12, 2021)

    The Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision is a public officer who is required to collect the names of inmates, the nature and duration of their sentences, and the duration of their punishments (see Correction Law §§ 29, 119). Thus, the certificate of incarceration with the seal of DOCCS qualified for admission under the common-law public documents exception to the hearsay rule (see Smith, 258 A.D.2d at 249; People v Hudson, 237 A.D.2d 943, 944 [4th Dept 1997], lv denied 89 N.Y.2d 1094 [1997]). Finally, inasmuch as there was a prior finding that defendant's 2002 conviction is a predicate violent felony conviction, he could not challenge that finding in the subsequent proceeding to adjudicate him a persistent violent felony offender (see CPL 400.15 [8]; People v Wilson, 231 A.D.2d 912, 913 [4th Dept 1996], lv denied 89 N.Y.2d 868 [1996]).

  3. Hallston Manor v. Andrew

    60 A.D.3d 1330 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)   Cited 12 times

    We agree with defendant that the court erred in admitting that affidavit in evidence pursuant to CPLR 4520. Contrary to the court's determination, the affidavit was not admissible under CPLR 4520 inasmuch as the process server was not "required or authorized, by special provision of law" to make the affidavit of service ( cf. People v Hudson, 237 AD2d 943, lv denied 89 NY2d 1094). We reject plaintiff's alternative contention that the affidavit of service was admissible under CPLR 4531.

  4. People v. McAllister

    295 A.D.2d 162 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)   Cited 1 times

    Defendant was properly adjudicated a persistent violent felony offender. His identity and persistent violent felony offender status were properly established by the People (see, People v. Hudson, 237 A.D.2d 943,lv denied 89 N.Y.2d 1094). The court properly denied defendant's motion to vacate the judgment.

  5. People v. Gibson

    2021 N.Y. Slip Op. 6232 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2021)

    The Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision is a public officer who is required to collect the names of inmates, the nature and duration of their sentences, and the duration of their punishments (see Correction Law §§ 29, 119). Thus, the certificate of incarceration with the seal of DOCCS qualified for admission under the common-law public documents exception to the hearsay rule (see Smith, 258 A.D.2d at 249; People v Hudson, 237 A.D.2d 943, 944 [4th Dept 1997], lv denied 89 N.Y.2d 1094 [1997]). Finally, inasmuch as there was a prior finding that defendant's 2002 conviction is a predicate violent felony conviction, he could not challenge that finding in the subsequent proceeding to adjudicate him a persistent violent felony offender (see CPL 400.15 [8]; People v Wilson, 231 A.D.2d 912, 913 [4th Dept 1996], lv denied 89 N.Y.2d 868 [1996]).

  6. In Matter of Stevens v. Schriro

    2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 52399 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2010)

    The record points to no contrary accounts by Officers Strunkey, Rush, Rouse, Espino, or Conyers or anyone else present other than inmate Ricks, who obviously had a motive to implicate Officer Strunkey by attributing Ricks's release from his cell to Strunkey, portraying the assault as initiated by him, and maximizing its seriousness. Although the other officers' use of force reports, Ex. H, likely would qualify as admissible public or business records, absent their certification, C.P.L.R. §§ 4518(c), 4520, 4540(a) and (b); People v. Mertz, 68 NY2d 136, 147-48 (1986); People v. Brown, 221 AD2d 270, 271 (1st Dep't 1995); People v. Smith, 258 AD2d 245, 249-50 (4th Dep't 1999); People v. Hudson, 237 AD2d 943, 944 (4th Dep't 1997); see Peoplev. James , 4 AD3d 774, 775 (4th Dep't 2004), or a witness laying a business record foundation, petitioner has not presented them in admissible form. C.P.L.R. §§ 3122-a, 4518(a); People v. Mertz, 68 NY2d at 147; Zuluaga v. P.P.C. Constr., LLC , 45 AD3d 479, 480 (1st Dep't 2007); Vento v. City of New York , 25 AD3d 329, 330 (1st Dep't 2006); Holliday v. Hudson Armored Car Courier Serv., 301 AD2d 392, 396 (1st Dep't 2003).

  7. Stevens v. Schriro

    2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 33998 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2010)

    Although the other officers' use of force reports, Ex. H, likely would qualify as admissible public or business records, absent their certification, C.P.L.R. §§ 4518(c), 4520, 4540(a) and (b); People v. Mertz, 68 N.Y.2d 136, 147-48 (1986); People v. Brown, 221 A.D.2d 270, 271 (1st Dep't 1995); People v. Smith, 258 A.D.2d 245, 249-50 (4th Dep't 1999); People v. Hudson, 237 A.D.2d 943, 944 (4th Dep't 1997); see People v. James, 4 A.D.3d 774, 775 (4th Dep't 2004), or a witness laying a business record foundation, petitioner has not presented them in admissible form. C.P.L.R. §§ 3122-a, 4518(a); People v. Mertz, 68 N.Y.2d at 147; Zuluaga v. P.P.C. Constr., LLC, 45 A.D.3d 479, 480 (1st Dep't 2007); Vento v. City of New York, 25 A.D.3d 329, 330 (1st Dep't 2006); Holliday v. Hudson Armored Car & Courier Serv., 301 A.D.2d 392, 396 (1st Dep't 2003).

  8. Bodden v. Stouall

    2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 52731 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2009)

    . Moreover, this report is not certified, C.P.L.R. §§ 4518(c), 4520, 4540(a) and (b); People v. Mertz, 68 NY2d 136, 147-48 (1986); People v. Brown, 221 AD2d 270, 271 (1st Dep't 1995); People v. Smith, 258 AD2d 245, 249-50 (4th Dep't 1999); People v. Hudson, 237 AD2d 943, 944 (4th Dep't 1997); seePeople v. James , 4 AD3d 774, 775 (4th Dep't 2004), nor does any witness lay the foundation for the report's admissibility as a business record or other exception to the rule against hearsay. E.g., C.P.L.R. § 4518(a); People v. Mertz, 68 NY2d at 147;Zuluaga v. P.P.C. Constr., LLC , 45 AD3d 479, 480 (1st Dep't 2007); Vento v. City of New York , 25 AD3d 329, 330 (1st Dep't 2006); Holliday v. Hudson Armored Car Courier Serv., 301 AD2d 392, 396 (1st Dep't 2003).See People v. Rawlins , 37 AD3d 183, 184 (1st Dep't 2007), aff'd, 10 NY3d 136 (2008); Kupferle v. Deidra Transp., 300 AD2d 192 (1st Dep't 2002)

  9. BANK OF NY v. DELL-WEBSTER

    2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 52678 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2008)

    ¶ 3. See C.P.L.R. §§ 4518(c), 4520, 4540(a) and (b); People v. Brown, 221 AD2d 270, 271 (1st Dep't 1995); People v. Smith, 258 AD2d 245, 249-50 (4th Dep't 1999); People v. Hudson, 237 AD2d 943, 944 (4th Dep't 1997). Relying on inadmissible documents, however, plaintiff claims that on May 5, 2006, Dell conveyed the 1050 Grant Avenue property to his daughter Dell-Webster and himself.

  10. Osborn Mem. Home v. Assessor

    9 Misc. 3d 1019 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2005)   Cited 10 times
    In Miriam Osborn Memorial Home Association v. Assessor of the City of Rye, 9 Misc 3d 1019, 800 N.Y.S.2d 909 (2005), this Court held that the New York State Office of Real Property Services ["ORPS"] SalesWeb was admissible as an electronic record pursuant to CPLR Section 4518(a) and Section 306 (formerly 106) of the New York State Technology Law.

    Under the common-law public documents hearsay exception, "[w]hen a public officer is required or authorized, by statute or nature of the duty of the office, to keep records or to make reports of acts or transactions occurring in the course of the official duty, the records or reports . . . are admissible in evidence." (Prince, Richardson on Evidence § 8-1101, at 688 [Farrell 11th ed]; see also, People v. Hudson, 237 AD2d 943 [4th Dept 1997].) Presumed Reliability and Efficiency