JOEL R. BRANDES CONSULTING SERVICES, INC.
  • Home
  • Bookstore
    • New York Matrimonial Trial Handbook
    • New York Matrimonial Trial Handbook 2022 Update Pdf Edition
    • Books about Divorce and Family Law
  • Conduct of Trial
    • Order of Trial - In General
    • Order of Trial - Opening and Closing statements: When and how to make them
    • Order of Trial - Motion to Dismiss After Opening Statementage
    • Conduct of Trial - Right to Cross-Examination of Witness
    • Conduct of Trial - Right to Call Witnesses for Direct Examination
    • Conduct of Trial - Scope of Cross-Examination - Making Adverse Witness Own Witness
    • Conduct of Trial - Redirect Examination
    • ​Conduct of Trial - Redirect Examination - Rule of Completeness
    • Conduct of Trial - Re-Cross Examination of Witness
    • Conduct of Trial - Motion to Dismiss for failure to establish a Prima Facie Case
    • Conduct of Trial - Courtroom Decorum for Counsel and Court - Addressing the Judge - Approaching the Bench
    • Conduct of Trial - Calling a Witness to the Stand to Testify
    • Conduct of Trial - Method of Calling a Witness to the Stand - Presenting Witnesses
    • Conduct of Trial - Requirement that Witness Have Personal Knowledge
    • Conduct of Trial - Examination of Witnesses - Method of Examination - Improper Questions
    • Conduct of Trial – Importance of Objections to Inadmissible Evidence or Improper Questions
    • Conduct of Trial - Method of Making an Objection
    • Conduct of Trial - Voir Dire to Challenge Foundation for Introduction of Evidence
    • Conduct of Trial - Leading Questions - What they are and when they are permitted
    • Conduct of Trial - Method of Making Objection to Leading Question
    • Conduct of Trial - Refreshing the Witness’s Recollection
    • Conduct of Trial - Questions for Refreshing Witness Recollection
    • Conduct of Trial - Refreshing Recollection of Witness - Past recollection recorded
    • ​Conduct of Trial - Motion for Reconsideration of Prior Ruling
    • Conduct of Trial - Method of Making Motion to Reconsider Prior Ruling
    • ​Conduct of Trial - Motion to Adjourn Trial - Defendant’s Objection to proceed with Defense before Plaintiff Rests
    • ​Conduct of Trial - Method of Making Motion to Adjourn - Objection to proceed with Defense before Plaintiff Rests
    • Conduct of Trial - Continuing Objection
    • Conduct of Trial - Motion to Strike Evidence Improperly Admitted
    • Conduct of Trial - Motion to Strike Evidence Admitted Subject to Connection
    • Conduct of Trial - Offer of Proof - What is it?
    • Conduct of Trial - Method of Making an Offer of Proof
    • ​Conduct of Trial - Exclusion of Witnesses from Courtroom
    • Conduct of Trial - Method of Making Request to Exclude Witnesses
    • Conduct of Trial - Discretion of Judge to Question Witnesses
    • Conduct of Trial - Right of Court to Compel Testimony
    • Conduct of Trial - Right of Trial Judge to Call own Witness.
  • Trial Testimony
    • Trial Testimony - Right to Confer with Counsel
    • Trial Testimony - Right to Interpreter for Person Who Can Not Communicate with Court
    • Trial Testimony - Calling the Adverse Party as a Witness
    • Trial Testimony - Cross Examination - Modes of impeachment
    • ​Trial Testimony - Cross - Examination - Impeachment of Witnesses
    • Trial Testimony - Cross-Examination - Impeachment Limited by Collateral Evidence Rule
    • Trial Testimony - Cross Examination - Impeachment - Reputation for Veracity
    • Trial Testimony - Cross Examination - Reputation for Veracity - Laying Foundation for Impeachment Testimony of Bad Reputation for Veracity
    • Trial Testimony - Cross Examination - Reputation for Veracity - Questions for Impeachment Testimony of Bad Reputation for Veracity
    • Trial Testimony - Cross - Examination - Impeachment of Witness by Prior Inconsistent Statement and Questions for Introduction
    • Trial Testimony - Testimony of Child
    • Trial Testimony- Cross - Examination – Inadmissibility of Proof of Prior Arrest, Indictment or Conviction for Petty Crime
    • Trial Testimony - Cross - Examination - Attempt to Procure False Evidence Competent as an Admission
    • Trial Testimony - Cross-Examination - Impeachment of Witness by Criminal Conviction
    • ​Trial Testimony - Cross-Examination - Impeachment of Witness by Showing Bias, Hostility, or Interest
    • ​Trial Testimony - Cross - Examination - Impeachment by Showing Witness Hostile to Party
    • Trial Testimony- Cross - Examination - Impeachment by Showing Predisposition
    • Trial Testimony - Questions for Impeaching Witness on Cross - Examination by Showing Hostility
    • ​Trial Testimony - Impeaching own Witness
    • Trial Testimony - Prior Testimony - Use of Depositions at Trial or Hearing
    • Trial Testimony - Prior Testimony - Use of Deposition from Prior Action
    • Trial Testimony - Prior Testimony - Effect of using deposition.
    • ​Trial Testimony - Prior Testimony - Use of Deposition Subject to Rules of Evidence
    • Trial Testimony - Prior Testimony - Questions for Impeaching Witness on Cross Examination by Prior Deposition Testimony
    • Trial Testimony - Prior Testimony - Use of Answers to Interrogatories
    • Trial Testimony - Prior Testimony - Use of Answers to Interrogatories from Prior Action
    • Trial Testimony - Prior Testimony - Effect of using Answers to Interrogatories.
    • Trial Testimony - Prior Testimony - Use of Answers to interrogatories Subject to Rules of Evidence
    • Trial Testimony - Prior Testimony - Questions for Impeaching Witness on Cross Examination by Answers to interrogatories
    • Trial Testimony - Prior Testimony - Admission of Prior Testimony
    • Trial Testimony - Prior Testimony - Admission of Prior Testimony Subject to Objection
    • Trial Testimony - Prior Testimony - Necessity of Foundation for Admission of Prior Testimony
    • Trial Testimony - Prior Testimony - Questions for Impeaching Witness on Cross Examination by Prior Testimony
    • Trial Testimony - Method of Marking Documents as Exhibits for Identification and Offering them into Evidence
    • Trial Testimony - Method of Offering Exhibit Marked for Identification into Evidence - Standard Questions
  • Rules of Evidence in Matrimonial Actions
    • Rules of Evidence - In General
    • Evidence and Proof - Competent and Material
    • ​Admissibility of Evidence - General Rule
    • Burden of Proof - Standards of Proof
    • Burden of Proof - Fair Preponderance of Credible Evidence - Clear and Convincing Evidence
    • Burden of Proof - Clear and Convincing Evidence in Matrimonial Actions
    • ​Burden of Proof - Presumptions
    • ​Burden of Proof - “Competent Proof” in Family Court Proceedings
    • ​Standards of Proof for Overcoming Presumptions in Matrimonial Actions
    • ​Foundation for Evidence - Fundamental Error and Harmless Error
    • Foundation for Evidence - Stare Decisis - The Doctrine of Precedent
    • Foundation for Evidence - Law of the Case
    • Foundation for Evidence - Judicial Estoppel
    • Foundation for Evidence - Rule Against Inconsistent Positions
    • Foundation for Evidence - Estoppel from Presenting Evidence at Trial Based Upon Contents of Response to Discovery Demand
    • Foundation for Evidence - Judicial Notice of Law and Facts
    • Foundation for Evidence - Method of Asking Court to Take Judicial Notice of a Fact
    • Foundation for Evidence - Judicial Notice of Testimony at Prior Pendente lite Hearing
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Settlement Offers Not Admissible
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Admissions and Letters by Party’s Attorney Admissible in Evidence
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Presumption that Only Admissible Evidence Was Considered By the Trial Court.
    • Admissibility of Evidence – Rule against Hearsay
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Exceptions to the Rule against Hearsay Applicable in Matrimonial Case
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Exceptions to the Rule against Hearsay - Verbal or operative acts and State of Mind
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Exceptions to the Rule against Hearsay - State of Mind
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Exceptions to the Rule against Hearsay - Present Sense Impression and Excited Utterance/Spontaneous Declaration
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay - Not Necessary to Lay Foundation For Admission of Certified Non-Party Business Records Produced Pursuant to Subpoena - CPLR 3122-a.
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Exceptions to the Rule against Hearsay - Expressions of Intent
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Exceptions to the Rule against Hearsay - Evidence of Abuse or Neglect in Custody and Child Protective Proceedings
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Exceptions to the Rule against Hearsay - Former Testimony
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Exceptions to the Rule against Hearsay - Admissions
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Exceptions to the Rule against Hearsay - Admission of New Spouse
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Exceptions to the Rule against Hearsay - Past recollection recorded
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Exceptions to the Rule against Hearsay - Business Records
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Exceptions to the Rule against Hearsay - Laying a Foundation for and Questions for Offering Business Records into Evidence
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay - Business Records - Admission of Hospital bills and Records, Records and Reports of Genetic Marker or DNA tests, and Payment Records
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Exceptions to the Rule against Hearsay - Admission of Certified Hospital, Library, and Government Records.
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay - Admission of Business Records - Other Certification Substitutes for Foundation Testimony.
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay - Admissibility of Medical Reports - Not admissible As Business Records Where They Contain Doctor's Opinion or Expert Proof
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Exceptions to the Rule against Hearsay - Laying a Foundation for Admission of Business Records and Records of Municipality into Evidence - Summary of Rule
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Exceptions to the Rule against Hearsay - Questions for Laying a Foundation for and Offering Business and Municipality Records into Evidence
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Exceptions to the Rule against Hearsay - Method of Laying a Foundation for and Offering into Evidence Certified Records of Business or Municipality
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Exceptions to the Rule against Hearsay - Business Records Rule - Business Duty
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Results of Lie Detector Test Inadmissible
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Privilege - Testimony of One Spouse against the Other. - Action founded Upon Adultery - In General
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Expert Report Inadmissible Without Consent
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Privilege - Testimony of One Spouse against the Other- Action Founded Upon Adultery - As to Non-access
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Privilege - Testimony of One Spouse Against the Other – Actions for Divorce, Separation or Annulment - Confidential Communications.
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Privilege - Testimony of One Spouse against the Other - Confidential Communications - Waiver
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Privilege - Confidential Communications - Waiver
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Privilege - Testimony of One Spouse for the Other - Action founded Upon Adultery
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Privilege - Confessions and Admissions - Action Founded Upon Adultery
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Privilege - Conduct Prior to Marriage - Action Founded Upon Adultery.
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Privilege - Attorney - Client Privilege - Civil Practice Law and Rules § 4501.
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Privilege - Psychologist - Patient Privilege - Civil Practice Law and Rules § 4507.
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Privilege - Physician, dentist, podiatrist, chiropractor and nurse Privilege - Civil Practice Law and Rules § 4507.
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Privilege - Clergy - Penitent Privilege - Civil Practice Law and Rules § 4505.
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Privilege - Social worker - Patient Privilege - Civil Practice Law and Rules § 4508(a).
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Privilege - Rape crisis counselor - client Privilege - Civil Practice Law and Rules § 4510.
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Practice Point - Privilege - Confidential Communications
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Privilege - Fifth Amendment Privilege against Self-Incrimination
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Privilege - Method of Making Objection to Question on Fifth Amendment Grounds
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Privilege - Adverse Inference from Failure of Party to Testify and Failure to Call Favorable Witness - Missing Witness Rule in Civil Case
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Privilege - New York Privilege against Self-incrimination - Civil Practice Law and Rules §4501.
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Privilege - Electronic Communication of Privileged Communications - Civil Practice Law and Rules § 4548
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Evidence Illegally Obtained. – Unlawful Entry, Search and Seizure and Electronic Surveillance of Family Conversations – Exceptions for Custody and Article 10 Cases
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Suppression of Illegally Obtained Eavesdropping Evidence - Civil Practice Law and Rules § 4506(a) - Vicarious Consent for Child
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Motion to Suppress Illegally Obtained Eavesdropping Evidence under CPLR § 4506
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Illegal Interception of Electronic Evidence - Electronic Evidence Defined
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Social Networking Sites
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Admissibility of Electronic Evidence
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Authentication of Instant Message
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Authentication of Text Message and Questions for Introduction into Evidence
    • Questions to Lay Foundation for Introduction of text message into evidence
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Authentication of Blogs and Websites
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Authentication of email and Questions for Introduction
    • Questions to Lay Foundation for Introduction of email into evidence
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Evidence Obtained By Spyware - CPLR 4506
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Admissibility of Audio and Visual Recordings
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Admissibility of Audio and Visual Recordings - Foundation for Admission of Recordings
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Questions for Laying Foundation for Admission of Recorded telephone call into Evidence
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Questions for Laying Foundation for Admission of Transcript of Sound Recorded telephone call into Evidence
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Best evidence rule
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Parol Evidence Rule
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Authentication of Foreign Records and Documents for Use at Trial
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Spoliation - Unfavorable Inference - Preclusion
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Inadmissibility of Evidence Protected by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Admissibility of Foreign Language Exhibits and Affidavits and Papers
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Authentication of official record of court or government office in the United States
    • Practice Point - Admissibility of Charts and Summaries Counsel may be permitted to use charts to summarize documents already in evidence where the charts are based solely on information already in evidence. A foundation must be laid, demonstrating that
    • Practice Point – Testimony about Out of Court Statements Made by Third Party.
    • Practice Point - No Client - Expert Privilege.
    • Practice Point - Trial Evidence not Limited by Scope of Pretrial Disclosure
    • Practice Point - Effect of the Failure of a Party to Deny or Contradict Evidence or Pleadings
    • Practice Point - Effect of withholding Evidence in Your Possession, or Failure to Call a Witness
  • Opinion Evidence
    • Opinion Evidence and Need for Expert Opinion
    • Opinion Evidence - Form of expert opinion
    • Opinion Evidence - Admissibility of Expert Testimony - Basis for Admission of Expert Opinion
    • Opinion Evidence - Impeaching Your Own Expert Witness.
    • Opinion Evidence - Opinion of Ordinary Witness as to ownership, intent, belief and value of property or services.
    • Opinion Evidence - Cross Examination of Expert Witnesses - Impeaching the Expert
    • Opinion Evidence
    • Opinion Evidence – Qualification of Expert and Weight of Testimony
    • Opinion Evidence - Expert Cannot Be Compelled to Testify
  • Custody Proceedings - Rules of Evidence
    • Custody Proceedings - Evidence - Admissibility of Hearsay
    • Custody Proceedings - Evidence - Use of Experts, Evaluations, and Reports
    • Custody Proceedings - Evidence - Investigations
    • Custody Proceedings – Evidence - In-camera and Lincoln interviews
    • Custody Proceedings – Evidence - Confidential communications - Waiver in Custody Cases
    • Custody Proceedings - Evidence - Child Permitted to Assert Psychologist - Patient Privilege
    • Custody Proceedings - Evidence - Admissibility of child abuse reports
    • Custody Proceedings - Evidence - Child as a Witness
  • Questions for the Examination of Witnesses
    • Questions for Placing Stipulation on the Record and Allocution
    • Questions for prima facie economic case - Direct Examination of Client – General Questions
    • Questions for Prima Facie Custody Case -Direct Examination of Party
  • About
  • Contact us
Joel R. Brandes Consulting Services Bookstore
Picture
Admissibility of Evidence - Admissibility of Audio and Visual Recordings - Foundation for Admission of Recordings
 
          Sound recordings of relevant events are admissible in evidence as long as a proper foundation is laid. In People v. Ely,[1] the Court of Appeals held that there are four different ways to authenticate sound recordings of conversations and noted that admissibility 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.
 
          The necessary foundation for the admissibility of sound recordings may be provided by (1) Testimony of a participant in the conversation that it is a complete and accurate reproduction of the conversation and has not been altered; (2) Testimony of a witness to the conversation or to its recording, such as the machine operator, that it is a complete and accurate reproduction of the conversation and has not been altered; (3) Testimony of a participant in the conversation together with proof by an expert witness that after analysis of the tapes for splices or alterations there was, in his or her opinion, no indication of either; or (4) A chain of custody method which requires, in addition to evidence concerning the making of the tapes and identification of the speakers, that within reasonable limits those who have handled the tape from its making to its production in court identify it and testify to its custody and unchanged condition. The fourth method may be used when no auditor of the conversation is available.[2]
 
          The foundation for sound recording requires a showing that the entire tape is complete, accurate and free from alteration. These requirements cannot be avoided by introducing only isolated portions of tape to prove a particular prior inconsistent statement of a witness who testifies at trial.[3] The Court of Appeals has held that "identity and authenticity are separate facets of the required foundation, both of which must be established. The predicate for admission of tape recordings in evidence is clear and convincing proof that the tapes are genuine and that they have not been altered. This predicate is not satisfied where there is no attempt to offer proof about who recorded the conversation, how it was recorded (e.g., the equipment used) or the chain of custody during the years that elapsed between the time the conversation allegedly took place, and the trial.[4]
 
          Relevant videotapes and technologically generated documentation are ordinarily admissible in evidence. Some reliable authentication and foundation, including technically acceptable self-authentication techniques, are necessary. Testimony, expert or otherwise, may also establish that a videotape truly and accurately represents what was before the camera. [5]  Evidence establishing the chain of custody of the videotape may additionally buttress its authenticity and integrity and even allow for acceptable inferences of reasonable accuracy and freedom from tampering.[6] These methods of authentication are not exclusive and they correspond with standards developed and utilized in other States.  [7] A video may be authenticated by a person other than the creator of the video where the testimony of a witness to the recorded events demonstrates that the videotape accurately represents the subject matter depicted.[8]
 
          Exclusion is required if a sound recording "is so inaudible and indistinct that a jury must speculate as to its contents.[9] "The test of the sufficiency of a recording with respect to audibility is whether an "independent third [party] can listen to [the recording] and produce a reasonable transcript.” [10] If the overall tape is sufficiently audible, fair and accurate as to material events recorded thereon, the presence of some inaudible portions will not preclude its admissibility.[11]  Such infirmities "go to the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility.[12]Identification of the voices on the tape is another condition to the admissibility of a sound recording. A witness may testify that he recognized a person's voice as being that of the defendant's husband, whether he heard it in person, over the telephone, or by some other mechanical or electronic means. The Court of Appeals has held that a voice heard "may be compared with the voice of a speaker whom one meets for the first time thereafter as well as with the voice of a speaker whom one has known before.” [13] This principle has been extended to voices on tape recordings. In ascertaining the identity of the voice on a tape "[t]he remoteness of the personal conversations between the identifying witness and defendant from the time of the voice identification affected the weight rather than the   competency of the evidence".[14]


           A telephone caller's identity may also be established, circumstantially, by the substance of the conversation, for example, where the caller refers to matters that only a particular person could have known about.[15]
 
          When a witness testifies to the identity of a person to whom he has placed a call, he may be able to make the identification on the basis of familiarity with the recipient's voice.[16]
 
          Even if the witness has no familiarity with the recipient's voice, identification may be made on the basis of circumstantial evidence. In People v. Lynes the court stated: "Thus, in part on the theory that the customary mode of operation of telephone users provides some assurance of reliability, in some instances the placing of a call to a number listed in a directory or other similarly responsible index of subscribers, coupled with an unforced acknowledgment by the one answering that he or she is the one so listed, has been held to constitute an adequate showing”.[17]
 
          If an audio recording is admissible, the court will allow a jury to look at a transcript of the recording while listening to it.  "A jury may use a transcript as an aid to understanding a tape recorded conversation when there is sufficient proof as to the accuracy of the transcript”.[18] The transcript is considered a form of demonstrative evidence which "illustrates" the recording.[19]


     [1]  68 N.Y.2d 520, 510 N.Y.S.2d 532, 503 N.E.2d 88 (1986).

     [2]  People v. Ely, 68 N.Y.2d 520, 510 N.Y.S.2d 532, 503 N.E.2d 88 (1986).

     [3]  People v. Joyner, 240 A.D.2d 282, 660 N.Y.S.2d 398 (1st Dep't 1997).
             In Matter of Giresi-Palazzolo v Palazzolo, 127 A.D.3d 752, 7 N.Y.S.3d 222 (2d Dept., 2015), the Appellate Division affirmed an order which denied the mother's family offense petition against the father and dismissed the proceeding. It held, inter alia, that contrary to the mother's contention, the Family Court did not err by admitting into evidence an audio recording of a conversation that took place between the parties on December 23, 2012. The father testified that he had personally recorded the conversation, that the recording was a complete and accurate reproduction of their interaction, and that the recording had not been altered. This testimony, which the Family Court credited, constituted sufficient proof of the accuracy and authenticity of the recording to warrant its admission. Any infirmities concerning audibility went to the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility (see People v. Ely, 68 N.Y.2d at 528; People v. McGee, 49 N.Y.2d at 60).

     [4]  In Grucci v Grucci, 20 N.Y.3d 893, 957 N.Y.S.2d 652 (2012) a civil action to recover damages for malicious prosecution, the plaintiff sought, through the testimony of his brother, Anthony Grucci, to play for the jury an audiotape of a telephone conversation in which the former wife Christine purportedly made clear to Anthony, at some point after she went to the police, that she was not afraid of Michael. Michael's attorney sought to play the audiotape during Anthony's testimony "as part of [his] presentation of [the telephone] conversation" with Christine that Anthony was recounting. Christine's attorney objected to the audiotape's admission on the grounds it was unreliable, "pieced together from a number of things" and "unintelligible"; that no chain of custody had been established; and generally that "no foundation [had been] laid for it at [that] point.” In response, Michael's attorney offered only to have Anthony identify the voices on the tape and state "whether or not the tape recording [was] fair and accurate."  When the judge asked if the tape had been authenticated, Michael's attorney responded "Not yet; this witness will authenticate."  The judge then sustained the objection, and Michael's attorney stated that he had no further questions for Anthony. The Court of Appeals observed that while a party to a taped conversation can identify the speakers, "identity and authenticity are separate facets of the required foundation, both of which must be established" ( People v. Ely, 68 N.Y.2d 520, 528 [1986] ). The Court of Appeals stated:  "The predicate for admission of tape recordings in evidence is clear and convincing proof that the tapes are genuine and that they have not been altered.” Here, there was no attempt to offer proof about who recorded the conversation, how it was recorded (e.g., the equipment used) or the chain of custody during the nearly nine years that elapsed between early 2000, when the conversation allegedly took place, and the trial in late 2008. It held that given the facts and circumstances of this case, the judge did not abuse his discretion by requiring more than Anthony's representation that the tape was "fair and accurate" to establish a sufficient "predicate" before playing the tape for the jury.

     [5]  People v Byrnes, 33 NY2d 343, at 349.

     [6]  People v. Patterson, 93 N.Y.2d 80, 84©85, 710 N.E.2d 665 (1999) citing People v Ely, 68 NY2d 520, 527-528.

     [7]   See, e.g., Matter of Burack, 201 AD2d 561; People v Scutt, 254 AD2d 807, lv denied 92 NY2d 1038; People v Fondal, 154 AD2d 476,   lv denied 75 NY2d 770; People v Higgins, 89 Misc 2d 913.

     [8] People v. Patterson, 93 N.Y.2d 80, 84, 688 N.Y.S.2d 101, 710 N.E.2d 665; see Zegarelli v. Hughes, 3 N.Y.3d 64, 69, 781 N.Y.S.2d 488, 814 N.E.2d 795; Read v. Ellenville Natl. Bank, 20 A.D.3d 408, 409, 799 N.Y.S.2d 78.
               In Matter of Blair v DiGregorio, 17 N.Y.S.3d 543, 2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 07383 (4th Dept., 2015) the Appellate Division, agreed with the father that Family Court erred in not admitting in evidence a video depicting the child in a vehicle with the mother on the ground that only the creator of that video could lay a proper foundation for its admission in evidence. During her testimony, the mother denied recording the video and testified that her older son recorded it. The father sought to introduce the video, which was sent by the mother to the father’s cell phone, to show that the mother was engaged in distracted driving by taking a video of the child while she was driving the vehicle. The father also sought to introduce that video to show that the mother was not a credible witness because the video supported the father’s assertion that the mother recorded the video, not her older son. The Appellate Division held that a video may be authenticated by a person other than the creator of the video where “the testimony of a witness to the recorded events demonstrates that the videotape accurately represents the subject matter depicted” and thus the court erred in not admitting he video in evidence on the ground that the mother did not record it. However, the error was harmless. Inasmuch as the father watched the video and testified to its contents. The admission of the video would have been cumulative of the testimony adduced at trial.

     [9]  People v. Carrasco, 125 A.D.2d 695, 696, 509 N.Y.S.2d 879, 881 (2d Dep't 1986); People v. Harris, 199 A.D.2d 636, 636, 604 N.Y.S.2d 1005, 1006 (3d Dep't 1993).

     [10]  People v. Carrasco, supra.

     [11]  See, e.g., People v. Morgan, 175 A.D.2d 930, 932, 573 N.Y.S.2d 765, 767 (2d Dep't 1991); People v. Harris, 199 A.D.2d 636, 636, 604 N.Y.S.2d 1005, 1006 (3d Dep't 1993).

     [12]  People v. McGee, 49 N.Y.2d 48, 60, 424 N.Y.S.2d 157, 164, 399 N.E.2d 1177, 1183 (1979); People v. Wilson, 207 A.D.2d 463, 463, 615 N.Y.S.2d 769, 770 (2d Dep't 1994).

     [13]  People v. Dunbar Contracting Co., 215 N.Y. 416, 422, 109 N.E. 554, 556 (1915).

     [14]  People v. Dinan, 15 A.D.2d 786, 787, 224 N.Y.S.2d 624, 627 (2d Dep't), aff'd, 11 N.Y.2d 350, 229 N.Y.S.2d 406, 183 N.E.2d 689 (1962).

     [15]  People v. Lynes, 49 N.Y.2d 286, 292, 425 N.Y.S.2d 295, 298, 401 N.E.2d 405, 408 (1980). Dobbin v. Greiner, 249 F. Supp. 2d 241 (S.D. N.Y. 2002).

     [16]  People v. Dunbar, 215 N.Y. 416, 422, 109 N.E. 554, 555 (1915). See also People v. McDermott, 160 Misc.2d 769, 773, 610 N.Y.S.2d 984, 986 (Dist. Ct. Nassau Co.1994) ("If the witness was not acquainted with the speaker, and, therefore, did not recognize his voice at the time of the telephone conversation, the telephone conversation is admissible if the witness testifies that she met the speaker thereafter and then recognized his voice as the voice she had heard over the telephone").

     [17]  People v. Lynes, 49 N.Y.2d 286, 425 N.Y.S.2d 295, 401 N.E.2d 405 (1980).

     [18]  People v. Tapia, 114 A.D.2d 983, 984, 495 N.Y.S.2d 93, 94 (2d Dep't 1985).

     [19]  People v. Feld, 305 N.Y. 322, 331-32, 113 N.E.2d 440, 444 (1953). See also People v. Robinson, 158 A.D.2d 628, 629, 551 N.Y.S.2d 599, 599 (2d Dep't 1990) (court instructed the jury that the transcripts were not in evidence but were for their assistance only).
​
​

​The material on our website is from  the New York Matrimonial Trial Handbook , by Joel R. Brandes of the New York Bar. It focuses on the procedural and substantive law, as well as the law of evidence, that an attorney must have at his or her fingertips when trying a New York matrimonial action or custody case.  It is intended to be an aide for preparing for a trial and as a reference for the procedure in offering and objecting to evidence during a trial.  There are numerous questions for the examination and cross-examination of witnesses. 
​Joel R. Brandes Consulting Services, Inc. ​publishes The ​New York Matrimonial Trial Handbook . It is available in Bookstores, and online in the print edition at  Amazon,  Barnes & Noble, Goodreads and other online book sellers.  

The New York Matrimonial Trial Handbook  is  available in Kindle ebook editions and epub ebook editions for all ebook readers in our website bookstore and in hard cover at our Bookbaby Bookstore. 
Joel R. Brandes Consulting Services, Inc.   
2881 NE 33rd Court (At Dock)
Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33306.
Telephone (954) 564-9883.
email to:divorce@ix.netcom.com.


​​Joel R. Brandes Consulting Services, Inc is a Florida corporation  which is owned and operated  by 
​Joel R. Brandes of The New York Law Firm of Joel R. Brandes. P.C. 
​This website is published by ​Joel R. Brandes Consulting Services, Inc., and written by Joel R. Brandes of The Law Firm of Joel R. Brandes. P.C.  Mr. Brandes has been recognized by the Appellate Division* as a "noted authority and expert on New York family law and divorce.” He is the author of  the treatise Law and The Family New York, 2d (9 volumes),Law and the Family New York Forms 2d (5 Volumes), Law and the Family New York Forms 2019 Edition (5 volumes)(Thomson Reuters),  and the New York Matrimonial Trial Handbook. Click here to visit New York Divorce and Family Law ™ the definitive site on the web for New York divorce and family law, presented by Joel R. Brandes of the Law Firm of Joel R. Brandes, P.C., 43 West 43rd Street, New York, New York 10036. (212) 859-5079.

Home

​Bookstore

About

Contact

Copyright © 2019, 2020,  Joel R. Brandes Consulting Services, Inc.
Proudly powered by Weebly
  • Home
  • Bookstore
    • New York Matrimonial Trial Handbook
    • New York Matrimonial Trial Handbook 2022 Update Pdf Edition
    • Books about Divorce and Family Law
  • Conduct of Trial
    • Order of Trial - In General
    • Order of Trial - Opening and Closing statements: When and how to make them
    • Order of Trial - Motion to Dismiss After Opening Statementage
    • Conduct of Trial - Right to Cross-Examination of Witness
    • Conduct of Trial - Right to Call Witnesses for Direct Examination
    • Conduct of Trial - Scope of Cross-Examination - Making Adverse Witness Own Witness
    • Conduct of Trial - Redirect Examination
    • ​Conduct of Trial - Redirect Examination - Rule of Completeness
    • Conduct of Trial - Re-Cross Examination of Witness
    • Conduct of Trial - Motion to Dismiss for failure to establish a Prima Facie Case
    • Conduct of Trial - Courtroom Decorum for Counsel and Court - Addressing the Judge - Approaching the Bench
    • Conduct of Trial - Calling a Witness to the Stand to Testify
    • Conduct of Trial - Method of Calling a Witness to the Stand - Presenting Witnesses
    • Conduct of Trial - Requirement that Witness Have Personal Knowledge
    • Conduct of Trial - Examination of Witnesses - Method of Examination - Improper Questions
    • Conduct of Trial – Importance of Objections to Inadmissible Evidence or Improper Questions
    • Conduct of Trial - Method of Making an Objection
    • Conduct of Trial - Voir Dire to Challenge Foundation for Introduction of Evidence
    • Conduct of Trial - Leading Questions - What they are and when they are permitted
    • Conduct of Trial - Method of Making Objection to Leading Question
    • Conduct of Trial - Refreshing the Witness’s Recollection
    • Conduct of Trial - Questions for Refreshing Witness Recollection
    • Conduct of Trial - Refreshing Recollection of Witness - Past recollection recorded
    • ​Conduct of Trial - Motion for Reconsideration of Prior Ruling
    • Conduct of Trial - Method of Making Motion to Reconsider Prior Ruling
    • ​Conduct of Trial - Motion to Adjourn Trial - Defendant’s Objection to proceed with Defense before Plaintiff Rests
    • ​Conduct of Trial - Method of Making Motion to Adjourn - Objection to proceed with Defense before Plaintiff Rests
    • Conduct of Trial - Continuing Objection
    • Conduct of Trial - Motion to Strike Evidence Improperly Admitted
    • Conduct of Trial - Motion to Strike Evidence Admitted Subject to Connection
    • Conduct of Trial - Offer of Proof - What is it?
    • Conduct of Trial - Method of Making an Offer of Proof
    • ​Conduct of Trial - Exclusion of Witnesses from Courtroom
    • Conduct of Trial - Method of Making Request to Exclude Witnesses
    • Conduct of Trial - Discretion of Judge to Question Witnesses
    • Conduct of Trial - Right of Court to Compel Testimony
    • Conduct of Trial - Right of Trial Judge to Call own Witness.
  • Trial Testimony
    • Trial Testimony - Right to Confer with Counsel
    • Trial Testimony - Right to Interpreter for Person Who Can Not Communicate with Court
    • Trial Testimony - Calling the Adverse Party as a Witness
    • Trial Testimony - Cross Examination - Modes of impeachment
    • ​Trial Testimony - Cross - Examination - Impeachment of Witnesses
    • Trial Testimony - Cross-Examination - Impeachment Limited by Collateral Evidence Rule
    • Trial Testimony - Cross Examination - Impeachment - Reputation for Veracity
    • Trial Testimony - Cross Examination - Reputation for Veracity - Laying Foundation for Impeachment Testimony of Bad Reputation for Veracity
    • Trial Testimony - Cross Examination - Reputation for Veracity - Questions for Impeachment Testimony of Bad Reputation for Veracity
    • Trial Testimony - Cross - Examination - Impeachment of Witness by Prior Inconsistent Statement and Questions for Introduction
    • Trial Testimony - Testimony of Child
    • Trial Testimony- Cross - Examination – Inadmissibility of Proof of Prior Arrest, Indictment or Conviction for Petty Crime
    • Trial Testimony - Cross - Examination - Attempt to Procure False Evidence Competent as an Admission
    • Trial Testimony - Cross-Examination - Impeachment of Witness by Criminal Conviction
    • ​Trial Testimony - Cross-Examination - Impeachment of Witness by Showing Bias, Hostility, or Interest
    • ​Trial Testimony - Cross - Examination - Impeachment by Showing Witness Hostile to Party
    • Trial Testimony- Cross - Examination - Impeachment by Showing Predisposition
    • Trial Testimony - Questions for Impeaching Witness on Cross - Examination by Showing Hostility
    • ​Trial Testimony - Impeaching own Witness
    • Trial Testimony - Prior Testimony - Use of Depositions at Trial or Hearing
    • Trial Testimony - Prior Testimony - Use of Deposition from Prior Action
    • Trial Testimony - Prior Testimony - Effect of using deposition.
    • ​Trial Testimony - Prior Testimony - Use of Deposition Subject to Rules of Evidence
    • Trial Testimony - Prior Testimony - Questions for Impeaching Witness on Cross Examination by Prior Deposition Testimony
    • Trial Testimony - Prior Testimony - Use of Answers to Interrogatories
    • Trial Testimony - Prior Testimony - Use of Answers to Interrogatories from Prior Action
    • Trial Testimony - Prior Testimony - Effect of using Answers to Interrogatories.
    • Trial Testimony - Prior Testimony - Use of Answers to interrogatories Subject to Rules of Evidence
    • Trial Testimony - Prior Testimony - Questions for Impeaching Witness on Cross Examination by Answers to interrogatories
    • Trial Testimony - Prior Testimony - Admission of Prior Testimony
    • Trial Testimony - Prior Testimony - Admission of Prior Testimony Subject to Objection
    • Trial Testimony - Prior Testimony - Necessity of Foundation for Admission of Prior Testimony
    • Trial Testimony - Prior Testimony - Questions for Impeaching Witness on Cross Examination by Prior Testimony
    • Trial Testimony - Method of Marking Documents as Exhibits for Identification and Offering them into Evidence
    • Trial Testimony - Method of Offering Exhibit Marked for Identification into Evidence - Standard Questions
  • Rules of Evidence in Matrimonial Actions
    • Rules of Evidence - In General
    • Evidence and Proof - Competent and Material
    • ​Admissibility of Evidence - General Rule
    • Burden of Proof - Standards of Proof
    • Burden of Proof - Fair Preponderance of Credible Evidence - Clear and Convincing Evidence
    • Burden of Proof - Clear and Convincing Evidence in Matrimonial Actions
    • ​Burden of Proof - Presumptions
    • ​Burden of Proof - “Competent Proof” in Family Court Proceedings
    • ​Standards of Proof for Overcoming Presumptions in Matrimonial Actions
    • ​Foundation for Evidence - Fundamental Error and Harmless Error
    • Foundation for Evidence - Stare Decisis - The Doctrine of Precedent
    • Foundation for Evidence - Law of the Case
    • Foundation for Evidence - Judicial Estoppel
    • Foundation for Evidence - Rule Against Inconsistent Positions
    • Foundation for Evidence - Estoppel from Presenting Evidence at Trial Based Upon Contents of Response to Discovery Demand
    • Foundation for Evidence - Judicial Notice of Law and Facts
    • Foundation for Evidence - Method of Asking Court to Take Judicial Notice of a Fact
    • Foundation for Evidence - Judicial Notice of Testimony at Prior Pendente lite Hearing
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Settlement Offers Not Admissible
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Admissions and Letters by Party’s Attorney Admissible in Evidence
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Presumption that Only Admissible Evidence Was Considered By the Trial Court.
    • Admissibility of Evidence – Rule against Hearsay
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Exceptions to the Rule against Hearsay Applicable in Matrimonial Case
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Exceptions to the Rule against Hearsay - Verbal or operative acts and State of Mind
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Exceptions to the Rule against Hearsay - State of Mind
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Exceptions to the Rule against Hearsay - Present Sense Impression and Excited Utterance/Spontaneous Declaration
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay - Not Necessary to Lay Foundation For Admission of Certified Non-Party Business Records Produced Pursuant to Subpoena - CPLR 3122-a.
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Exceptions to the Rule against Hearsay - Expressions of Intent
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Exceptions to the Rule against Hearsay - Evidence of Abuse or Neglect in Custody and Child Protective Proceedings
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Exceptions to the Rule against Hearsay - Former Testimony
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Exceptions to the Rule against Hearsay - Admissions
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Exceptions to the Rule against Hearsay - Admission of New Spouse
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Exceptions to the Rule against Hearsay - Past recollection recorded
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Exceptions to the Rule against Hearsay - Business Records
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Exceptions to the Rule against Hearsay - Laying a Foundation for and Questions for Offering Business Records into Evidence
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay - Business Records - Admission of Hospital bills and Records, Records and Reports of Genetic Marker or DNA tests, and Payment Records
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Exceptions to the Rule against Hearsay - Admission of Certified Hospital, Library, and Government Records.
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay - Admission of Business Records - Other Certification Substitutes for Foundation Testimony.
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay - Admissibility of Medical Reports - Not admissible As Business Records Where They Contain Doctor's Opinion or Expert Proof
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Exceptions to the Rule against Hearsay - Laying a Foundation for Admission of Business Records and Records of Municipality into Evidence - Summary of Rule
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Exceptions to the Rule against Hearsay - Questions for Laying a Foundation for and Offering Business and Municipality Records into Evidence
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Exceptions to the Rule against Hearsay - Method of Laying a Foundation for and Offering into Evidence Certified Records of Business or Municipality
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Exceptions to the Rule against Hearsay - Business Records Rule - Business Duty
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Results of Lie Detector Test Inadmissible
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Privilege - Testimony of One Spouse against the Other. - Action founded Upon Adultery - In General
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Expert Report Inadmissible Without Consent
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Privilege - Testimony of One Spouse against the Other- Action Founded Upon Adultery - As to Non-access
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Privilege - Testimony of One Spouse Against the Other – Actions for Divorce, Separation or Annulment - Confidential Communications.
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Privilege - Testimony of One Spouse against the Other - Confidential Communications - Waiver
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Privilege - Confidential Communications - Waiver
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Privilege - Testimony of One Spouse for the Other - Action founded Upon Adultery
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Privilege - Confessions and Admissions - Action Founded Upon Adultery
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Privilege - Conduct Prior to Marriage - Action Founded Upon Adultery.
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Privilege - Attorney - Client Privilege - Civil Practice Law and Rules § 4501.
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Privilege - Psychologist - Patient Privilege - Civil Practice Law and Rules § 4507.
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Privilege - Physician, dentist, podiatrist, chiropractor and nurse Privilege - Civil Practice Law and Rules § 4507.
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Privilege - Clergy - Penitent Privilege - Civil Practice Law and Rules § 4505.
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Privilege - Social worker - Patient Privilege - Civil Practice Law and Rules § 4508(a).
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Privilege - Rape crisis counselor - client Privilege - Civil Practice Law and Rules § 4510.
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Practice Point - Privilege - Confidential Communications
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Privilege - Fifth Amendment Privilege against Self-Incrimination
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Privilege - Method of Making Objection to Question on Fifth Amendment Grounds
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Privilege - Adverse Inference from Failure of Party to Testify and Failure to Call Favorable Witness - Missing Witness Rule in Civil Case
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Privilege - New York Privilege against Self-incrimination - Civil Practice Law and Rules §4501.
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Privilege - Electronic Communication of Privileged Communications - Civil Practice Law and Rules § 4548
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Evidence Illegally Obtained. – Unlawful Entry, Search and Seizure and Electronic Surveillance of Family Conversations – Exceptions for Custody and Article 10 Cases
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Suppression of Illegally Obtained Eavesdropping Evidence - Civil Practice Law and Rules § 4506(a) - Vicarious Consent for Child
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Motion to Suppress Illegally Obtained Eavesdropping Evidence under CPLR § 4506
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Illegal Interception of Electronic Evidence - Electronic Evidence Defined
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Social Networking Sites
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Admissibility of Electronic Evidence
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Authentication of Instant Message
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Authentication of Text Message and Questions for Introduction into Evidence
    • Questions to Lay Foundation for Introduction of text message into evidence
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Authentication of Blogs and Websites
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Authentication of email and Questions for Introduction
    • Questions to Lay Foundation for Introduction of email into evidence
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Evidence Obtained By Spyware - CPLR 4506
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Admissibility of Audio and Visual Recordings
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Admissibility of Audio and Visual Recordings - Foundation for Admission of Recordings
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Questions for Laying Foundation for Admission of Recorded telephone call into Evidence
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Questions for Laying Foundation for Admission of Transcript of Sound Recorded telephone call into Evidence
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Best evidence rule
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Parol Evidence Rule
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Authentication of Foreign Records and Documents for Use at Trial
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Spoliation - Unfavorable Inference - Preclusion
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Inadmissibility of Evidence Protected by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Admissibility of Foreign Language Exhibits and Affidavits and Papers
    • Admissibility of Evidence - Authentication of official record of court or government office in the United States
    • Practice Point - Admissibility of Charts and Summaries Counsel may be permitted to use charts to summarize documents already in evidence where the charts are based solely on information already in evidence. A foundation must be laid, demonstrating that
    • Practice Point – Testimony about Out of Court Statements Made by Third Party.
    • Practice Point - No Client - Expert Privilege.
    • Practice Point - Trial Evidence not Limited by Scope of Pretrial Disclosure
    • Practice Point - Effect of the Failure of a Party to Deny or Contradict Evidence or Pleadings
    • Practice Point - Effect of withholding Evidence in Your Possession, or Failure to Call a Witness
  • Opinion Evidence
    • Opinion Evidence and Need for Expert Opinion
    • Opinion Evidence - Form of expert opinion
    • Opinion Evidence - Admissibility of Expert Testimony - Basis for Admission of Expert Opinion
    • Opinion Evidence - Impeaching Your Own Expert Witness.
    • Opinion Evidence - Opinion of Ordinary Witness as to ownership, intent, belief and value of property or services.
    • Opinion Evidence - Cross Examination of Expert Witnesses - Impeaching the Expert
    • Opinion Evidence
    • Opinion Evidence – Qualification of Expert and Weight of Testimony
    • Opinion Evidence - Expert Cannot Be Compelled to Testify
  • Custody Proceedings - Rules of Evidence
    • Custody Proceedings - Evidence - Admissibility of Hearsay
    • Custody Proceedings - Evidence - Use of Experts, Evaluations, and Reports
    • Custody Proceedings - Evidence - Investigations
    • Custody Proceedings – Evidence - In-camera and Lincoln interviews
    • Custody Proceedings – Evidence - Confidential communications - Waiver in Custody Cases
    • Custody Proceedings - Evidence - Child Permitted to Assert Psychologist - Patient Privilege
    • Custody Proceedings - Evidence - Admissibility of child abuse reports
    • Custody Proceedings - Evidence - Child as a Witness
  • Questions for the Examination of Witnesses
    • Questions for Placing Stipulation on the Record and Allocution
    • Questions for prima facie economic case - Direct Examination of Client – General Questions
    • Questions for Prima Facie Custody Case -Direct Examination of Party
  • About
  • Contact us