Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Advocates
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Advocates

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. ROLAND RAMOS, Appellant.

OPINION OF THE COURT

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; People v Mayo, 48 NY2d 245, 253).

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 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.

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.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

PEOPLE v. RAMOS
(Jan 12, 2010)