TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

People v. Cook

The People of the State of New York v. Dennis Cook

People v. Cook, 220 A.D.2d 522 (1995)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · State Appellate Courts
Decided
October 10, 1995
Citations
220 A.D.2d 522632 N.Y.S.2d 1931995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9914

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kay, J.), rendered October 22, 1993, convicting him of assault in the second degree and petit larceny, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

During an altercation that was instigated by the defendant and his companions, they attempted to rob the complainant, *523 and the defendant cut the complainant’s neck with the jagged edge of a broken glass bottle, necessitating 125 stitches. The complainant’s girlfriend ran to a nearby telephone and dialed 911.

The tape recording of the telephone call to 911 was properly admitted into evidence under the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule. The telephone call was made while the altercation was occurring. Moreover, the girlfriend’s voice betrayed her concern for her boyfriend’s safety and her frustration due to her perception that the operator was not reacting quickly. Thus, the remarks were not the product of studied reflection (see, People v Nieves, 67 NY2d 125 ; see also, People v Edwards, 47 NY2d 493 ).

The tape recording of a second telephone call to 911 that was made by an unidentified caller while the altercation continued was properly admitted into evidence under the present sense exception to the hearsay rule. It contained a spontaneous description of events that occurred contemporaneously with the caller’s observations, and the description was sufficiently corroborated by the testimony of the other witnesses (see, People v Brown, 80 NY2d 729 ; cf., People v Orth, 201 AD2d 510 ).

We have reviewed the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Joy, Altman and Florio, JJ., concur.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1998: 22002: 12023: 119982026peak 1998 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. People v. Chaparro246 A.D.2d 339 (1998)
  2. People v. Agosto248 A.D.2d 301 (1998)
  3. People v. Harvey191 Misc. 2d 569 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2002)
  4. Wisdom v. PerezNo. 1:20-cv-02196 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 6, 2023)

Most recent

  1. Wisdom v. PerezNo. 1:20-cv-02196 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 6, 2023)
  2. People v. Harvey191 Misc. 2d 569 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2002)
  3. People v. Agosto248 A.D.2d 301 (1998)
  4. People v. Chaparro246 A.D.2d 339 (1998)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 4

DepthCaseCited by
People v. Edwards, 392 N.E.2d 1229 (N.Y. 1979) 268
People v. Brown, 610 N.E.2d 369 (N.Y. 1993) 159
People v. Nieves, 492 N.E.2d 109 (N.Y. 1986) 149
People v. Orth, 201 A.D.2d 510 (1994) 5

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list