People v. Ramos

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Ramos

922 N.E.2d 880, 13 N.Y.3d 914, 2010 NY Slip Op 192

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 12, 2010

Docket56 SSM 56

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 922 N.E.2d 880 (People v. Ramos) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Ramos, 922 N.E.2d 880, 13 N.Y.3d 914, 2010 NY Slip Op 192 (N.Y. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed and a new trial ordered on the charges of scheme to defraud in the first degree and petit larceny, and the present indictment otherwise dismissed without prejudice to an application by the People, if they be so advised, for leave to resubmit the charge of grand larceny in the fourth degree to another grand jury (see People v Steadman, 82 NY2d 1 [1993]; People v Mayo, 48 NY2d 245, 253 [1979]).

The trial court erred when it admitted hearsay evidence without a proper foundation (CPLR 4518 [a]). Even assuming some documents may be admitted as business records without *915 foundation testimony (see People v Kennedy, 68 NY2d 569, 577 n 4 [1986]), the record at issue in this case was not such a document. Nothing on its face indicates that it “was made in the regular course of any business and that it was the regular course of such business to make it” (CPLR 4518 [a]). Nor can the error be deemed harmless in the circumstances of this case.

Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur in memorandum.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order reversed, etc.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed and a new trial ordered on the charges of scheme to defraud in the first degree and petit larceny, and the present indictment otherwise dismissed without prejudice to an application by the People, if they be so advised, for leave to resubmit the charge of grand larceny in the fourth degree to another grand jury (see People v Steadman, 82 NY2d 1 [1993]; People v Mayo, 48 NY2d 245, 253 [1979]).

The trial court erred when it admitted hearsay evidence without a proper foundation (CPLR 4518 [a]). Even assuming some documents may be admitted as business records without *915 foundation testimony (see People v Kennedy, 68 NY2d 569, 577 n 4 [1986]), the record at issue in this case was not such a document. Nothing on its face indicates that it “was made in the regular course of any business and that it was the regular course of such business to make it” (CPLR 4518 [a]). Nor can the error be deemed harmless in the circumstances of this case.

Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur in memorandum.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order reversed, etc.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

922 N.E.2d 880, 13 N.Y.3d 914, 2010 NY Slip Op 192, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-ramos-ny-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack