Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Eric J. CARNEY, Defendant-Appellant.
Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him following a nonjury trial of, inter alia, felony driving while intoxicated (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192[3]; § 1193[1][c][i] ) and aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the first degree (§ 511[3][a][i] ). Contrary to the contention of defendant, his right of confrontation was not violated by the admission in evidence of records of the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles indicating that his driver's license had been revoked prior to his arrest and that notice of the revocation had been sent to him (see People v. Pacer, 21 A.D.3d 192, 194, 796 N.Y.S.2d 787, affd. 6 N.Y.3d 504, 814 N.Y.S.2d 575, 847 N.E.2d 1149; see generally Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 51-54, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177). Certain of those records were properly admitted in evidence pursuant to the business records exception to the hearsay rule (see CPLR 4518[a]; CPL 60.10; cf. Pacer, 21 A.D.3d at 194, 796 N.Y.S.2d 787). Even assuming, arguendo, that defendant is correct that County Court erred in admitting three license suspension orders in evidence based on the People's failure to lay a proper foundation for their admission, we conclude that the error is harmless. The record establishes that those orders included the same information contained in an abstract of defendant's driving record, and that abstract was properly admitted in evidence. We note in addition that police witnesses testified that defendant had admitted that he knew prior to his arrest that his license had been revoked. In any event, “[i]n this nonjury case, the court is presumed to have considered only competent evidence in reaching the verdict ․, and there is no basis in this record to conclude that the court did otherwise” (People v. Clinkscales, 277 A.D.2d 930, 931, 716 N.Y.S.2d 260, lv. denied 96 N.Y.2d 733, 722 N.Y.S.2d 800, 745 N.E.2d 1023).
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.
MEMORANDUM:
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: June 08, 2007
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)