People v. DicksPeople v. Dicks
Recordings of incriminating conversations between defendant and other persons were properly authenticated by participants’ testimony that the recordings were accurate, complete and unaltered (see People v Ely, 68 NY2d 520, 527 [1986]; People v Agudelo, 96 AD3d 611 [1st Dept 2012]). Defendant‘s identity as a participant in the conversations was sufficiently established by the testimony of another participant, as well as the surrounding circumstances, including several face-to-face meetings that followed up on the recorded conversations. No chain-of-custody evidence was required (see People v Ely, 68 NY2d at 528), and since the contents of the tapes were not in dispute, the best evidence rule did not apply (see Schozer v William Penn Life Ins. Co. N.Y., 84 NY2d 639, 643 [1994]). Concur — Tom, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Acosta and Freedman, JJ.