People v. Usher

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Usher

80 A.D.2d 730, 437 N.Y.S.2d 156, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10458

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

DecidedFebruary 26, 1981

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 80 A.D.2d 730 (People v. Usher) 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. Usher, 80 A.D.2d 730, 437 N.Y.S.2d 156, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10458 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment insofar as it resentenced defendant upon a finding of violation of probation unanimously vacated and defendant restored to probation. Memorandum: The People’s evidence failed to establish what defendant’s reporting obligation was, that he was aware of it or that he had violated it. The only material evidence offered was the affidavit of defendant’s probation officer. While the affidavit was admissible under the broad rules governing violation hearings, it did not qualify as competent evidence under the business record exception to the hearsay rule. That being so, there was no residuum of competent legal evidence in the record to support the court’s determination that defendant had violated probation (see People ex rel. Wallace v State of New York, 70 AD2d 781; People v Lynch, 31 AD2d 753). (Appeal from judgment of Monroe County Court — burglary, third degree.) Present — Cardamone, J. P., Simons, Callahan, Doerr and Schnepp, JJ.

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

Judgment insofar as it resentenced defendant upon a finding of violation of probation unanimously vacated and defendant restored to probation. Memorandum: The People’s evidence failed to establish what defendant’s reporting obligation was, that he was aware of it or that he had violated it. The only material evidence offered was the affidavit of defendant’s probation officer. While the affidavit was admissible under the broad rules governing violation hearings, it did not qualify as competent evidence under the business record exception to the hearsay rule. That being so, there was no residuum of competent legal evidence in the record to support the court’s determination that defendant had violated probation (see People ex rel. Wallace v State of New York, 70 AD2d 781; People v Lynch, 31 AD2d 753). (Appeal from judgment of Monroe County Court — burglary, third degree.) Present — Cardamone, J. P., Simons, Callahan, Doerr and Schnepp, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

80 A.D.2d 730, 437 N.Y.S.2d 156, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10458, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-usher-nyappdiv-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack