In contrast, statements exonerating the defendant, as in this case, are subject to a more lenient standard (Brensic, 70 NY2d to 15). In these circumstances, it is not necessary for a defendant to prove that the criminal consequences for the declarant were of such magnitude as to virtually exclude any grounds for falsification (id.; Maerling, 46 NY2d at 298). On the contrary, the supporting evidence is sufficient if it establishes a reasonable possibility that the statement may be true (Advocates at 169-170). The Court held that even circumstances of apparent indifference that harmonize the testimony may be sufficient to establish the necessary connection (id. 169). Moreover, it is irrelevant whether the court found the statement to be true: if the author of the testimony is able to prove this possibility of reliability, it is for the jury alone to determine whether the statement is sufficient to give rise to reasonable doubts of guilt (id., at p. 170). The parties` admission rule was difficult to apply to New York companies because not all employee testimony was admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule against the employer. Prior to this latest change, the rule in New York was that an employee statement was only allowed against the employer if the employer had the authority to speak on behalf of the company.
Typically, New York courts have found that the employee is only allowed if he or she is at a senior level in the organization, so the employee is deemed to speak on behalf of the employer. See Tyrrell v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 97 N.Y.2d 650 (2001) (employee`s statement that he had asked someone to clean up the spills did not qualify as party admission because plaintiff could not prove that unidentified employee was authorized to make the alleged statement); Scherer v. Golub Corp., 101 A.D.3d 1286 (3d Dept. 2012) (plaintiff`s statement that she heard store manager reprimand janitor for failing to clean up oil spill time ruled inadmissible); Schner v. Simpson, 286 A.D. 716 (1st Dept. 1955) (an employee`s statement to a plaintiff that «I am sorry to have knocked you down» was inadmissible against the employer because the employee was not authorized to speak on behalf of the employer). Although leaving the scene of the accident that caused property damage is a simple traffic offence, a statement against criminal interests need not be a particularly serious offence (see Basil/Huntington Utilities Fuel Corp., 60 AD2d 616, 617 [2d Dept. 1977]. Moreover, the record here is full of evidence of Hunt`s awareness of the potential criminality of his actions; Hunt expressed concern that driving the vehicle during the crash and escaping from the crash scene would cause him trouble and repeatedly sought legal advice (People v Fields, 66 NY2d 876, 877 [1985]).
The fact that Hunt was also worried about his parents` reaction shows his understanding of the consequences, rather than showing his lack of understanding. The fourth factor was also satisfied because Lamar Larson`s statement confirmed Hunt`s statement. Rule 801(d)(2)(d) of the Federal Rules of Evidence exempts statements made by an employee or agent of an opponent from hearsay if such statements were made in the course of that employment or agency. Such statements are also permitted in many states whose rules largely reflect the standard of federal rules of evidence. Nevertheless, the new exception to hearsay in New York will allow for more testimony from people with real knowledge of the events and ensure greater consistency between federal and state rules for the benefit of practitioners. The New York State Legislature recently amended the rules of evidence to significantly expand the «admission of parties» exception to the hearsay rule with the addition of CPLR 4549. The New York hearsay exception will now follow the approach of the federal rule of evidence 801(d)(2)(d). This new regulation will undoubtedly have negative consequences for employers and their insurers, as unverified reports of misconduct by subordinate employees are now more likely to be allowed against their employers. Section 4549 of the CPLR was drafted and signed to comply with the federal rules of evidence.
Section 4549 of Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(D) of the CPLR provides that if a statement is made against an opposing party and «by the party`s representative or employee in a matter relating to and while it existed,» it is not hearsay. What is hearsay? By far the most important and widely used rules of evidence concern the hearsay doctrine. Often misunderstood, it is necessary to review the essential principles. As readers of this newspaper know, the state`s hearsay rule excludes as evidence any extrajudicial statement offered to prove the truth of the alleged case. The definition of the various terms and exceptions involved in the application of the hearsay rule before national courts is largely reflected in the case-law. Background: Hearsay is a statement made outside the court or a statement presented to the court as evidence to prove that the content of the statement is true. Hearsay is usually inadmissible because it is considered unreliable because the parties have not had an opportunity to cross-examine or assess the credibility of the speaker. An exception to the hearsay prohibition is the «admission of a party» exception, which makes statements made by an opposing party to that party admissible. Logic dictates that a party should not make a statement that could be contrary to its interests unless the statement is true. New York`s unique approach to evidentiary proceedings — and in particular, its rules of admission by the representative of a partisan opponent — has frustrated litigators for years. However, recent changes to New York`s Rules of Civil Procedure have brought the state`s hearsay approach closer to the standard of federal rules of evidence.
These changes could have a significant impact on future litigation, particularly disputes involving workplace conduct. Please note that RUs are amended from time to time to generally include more categories of evidence. For example, in 2001, Rule 803(6) further relaxed the hearsay exception to business documents to provide for the admissibility of such documents without the testimony of a custodian, i.e. «by certificate pursuant to Rule 902(11), Rule 902(12) or by legislation authorizing certification» (certified domestic and foreign documents of activities carried out regularly). The new hearsay exception does not apply to statements made outside of an employment or agency relationship. This means that if an incident or accident occurred because the employee or agent did their job poorly, such as a delivery driver going off the route, any statement from that person is always excluded. Statements made by an employee or representative after his dismissal remain inadmissible because they were not made «during the existence of this relationship». Held: The Court of Appeal held that whether a declaration can be accepted as a declaration for interest depends on the assurance that the person knows that what he or she said could cause him or her to trouble with the law. The exception to the hearsay rule arises from the fact that a person does not normally disclose facts contrary to his or her own interest, unless those facts are true (Maerling, 46 NY2d at 295; People v.
Brensic, 70 NY2d 9, 14 [1987]). A declaration is considered a declaration of interest if four elements are present: See Section 3 of the Guide to NY Evidence for exceptions to the rule prohibiting the admission of hearsay for recordings that are considered prima facie evidence of their contents. Recent changes to the New York Rules of Evidence – and the possibility that there will be further changes in future legislative terms – underscore the importance for businesses and their advisors to stay informed of legal developments. Even small changes to the Code of Civil Procedure can have a significant impact. Understanding these changes and the associated risks is critical to protecting businesses from the pitfalls of litigation. In Settles, which deals with the possibility that someone may make a statement against interest, the Court of Appeal held that before a declaration against interests can be admissible, there must be evidence that, independent of the statement itself, supports the facts alleged in that statement (Settles, 46 NY2d at 168). Statements made against the defendant are subject to stricter standards and are admissible only if the threatened interest to the registrant is of a size or consequence sufficient to exclude any grounds for falsification (Brensic, 70 NY2d at 14-15). Another exception to hearsay, with marked differences between the two jurisdictions, is the federal hearsay exception, which includes writings cited by experts. FRE 803, paragraph 18, entitled `Scholarly treatises`, provides: «To the extent that an expert is brought to the attention of an expert in cross-examination or on which he relies in direct examination, statements in published treatises, periodicals or pamphlets on a subject of history, medicine or any other science or art, which are distinguished by the testimony or admission of the witness or by other expert testimony or by a judicial announcement as A reliable authority has been established.