People v. Rudenko

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Rudenko

240 A.D.2d 599, 659 N.Y.S.2d 988, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6922

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJune 16, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 240 A.D.2d 599 (People v. Rudenko) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Rudenko, 240 A.D.2d 599, 659 N.Y.S.2d 988, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6922 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Wade, J.), rendered April 24, 1996, convicting him of burglary in the second degree and grand larceny in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, testimony concerning his fingerprint was properly admitted into evidence although the actual record containing the print was not offered into evidence. The testimony was based on a business record and thus constituted an exception to the rule against hearsay (see, CPLR 4518 [a]; Prince, Richardson on Evidence § 8-301 [Farrell 11th ed]). Additionally, a proper foundation was established (see, People v Kennedy, 68 NY2d 569, 579-580). Although the record itself was not offered into evidence, on the facts here this was appropriate in order to avoid risking undue prejudice to the defendant (see, United States v Baker, 442 F2d 1024, cert denied 404 US 883; People v Balone, 52 AD2d 216; see also, People v Woods, 161 AD2d 1176).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or- without merit. Miller, J. P., Copertino, Sullivan and Altman, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Wade, J.), rendered April 24, 1996, convicting him of burglary in the second degree and grand larceny in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, testimony concerning his fingerprint was properly admitted into evidence although the actual record containing the print was not offered into evidence. The testimony was based on a business record and thus constituted an exception to the rule against hearsay (see, CPLR 4518 [a]; Prince, Richardson on Evidence § 8-301 [Farrell 11th ed]). Additionally, a proper foundation was established (see, People v Kennedy, 68 NY2d 569, 579-580). Although the record itself was not offered into evidence, on the facts here this was appropriate in order to avoid risking undue prejudice to the defendant (see, United States v Baker, 442 F2d 1024, cert denied 404 US 883; People v Balone, 52 AD2d 216; see also, People v Woods, 161 AD2d 1176).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or- without merit. Miller, J. P., Copertino, Sullivan and Altman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

240 A.D.2d 599, 659 N.Y.S.2d 988, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6922, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-rudenko-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack