99 A.D.3d 481
N.Y. App. Div.
2012
thermal

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v Luis VARGAS, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York

[952 NYS2d 41]

Defendant‘s right of confrontation was not violated by testimony by the People‘s expert DNA analyst that made reference to data gathered by nontestifying technicians (see People v Brown, 13 NY3d 332 [2009]). Williams v Illinois (567 US —, —, 132 S Ct 2221, 2242-2244 [2012]) provides further support for the proposition that the DNA evidence in this case did not violate the Confrontation Clause.

The court erred in ruling that class sign-in sheets from the program defendant was enrolled in on the date of the crime were admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. The evidence did not establish that these records were kept “regularly, systematically[ and] routinely” (People v Kennedy, 68 NY2d 569, 579 [1986]), or that if kept in the regular course of business, they were “needed and relied on in the performance of the functions of the business” (People v Cratsley, 86 NY2d 81, 89 [1995]). There was no other basis for admissibility. However, the error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant‘s guilt, including the DNA match (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230 [1975]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

(End of Opinion)

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v Dwayne SINGLETON, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York

[951 NYS2d 671]

The court provided an appropriate reduction of defendant‘s sentence pursuant to CPL 440.46, and we perceive no basis for a further reduction. Although the new sentence extended defendant‘s period of supervision beyond what would have been the maximum expiration date of the original sentence, nothing in CPL 440.46 rendered this resentence impermissible. The resentence had the ameliorative effect of allowing defendant to gain early release from prison, as a result of the relationship between the resentence and another sentence defendant was serving. The resentence was structured to benefit defendant, who received the exact sentence to which he had agreed (see People v Mack, 78 AD3d 520, 521 [1st Dept 2010], lv denied 16 NY3d 833 [2011]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

SPRINGWELL NAVIGATION CORP., Respondent, v SANLUIS CORPORACION, S.A., Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York

[952 NYS2d 128]

In this breach of contract action, defendant does not deny that it issued the subject unrestricted global note (UGN), that it was obligated to make certain interest and principal payments thereunder, and that it failed to make the required payments. Its sole argument is that plaintiff failed to demonstrate that it was the holder of a beneficial interest in the UGN. We have already held that plaintiff had standing to bring this suit in the registered holder‘s stead (Springwell Nav. Corp. v Sanluis Corporacion, S.A., 81 AD3d 557 [1st Dept 2011]). Thus, plaintiff was not required to establish that it was the holder.

We have considered defendant‘s remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v Luis ARANA, Also Known as Fernando FRANCO, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York

[951 NYS2d 866]

The People correctly concede that defendant is entitled to be brought before the court, provided with assigned counsel if eligible, and offered an opportunity to be heard on his motion for resentencing on his class B felony convictions. Although the sentences at issue run concurrently with the life sentences defendant is serving on his class A-1 felony convictions, and this Court has upheld the denial of resentencing on those convictions (People v Arana, 45 AD3d 311 [1st Dept 2007], lv dismissed 9 NY3d 1031 [2008]), the statutory procedural requirements still apply (see People v Diaz, 68 AD3d 497 [1st Dept 2009]). However, the motion court is under no obligation to conduct an evidentiary hearing.

Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

(End of Opinion) null

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v Luis VARGAS, Appellant.

[952 NYS2d 41]

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York

Defendant‘s right of confrontation was not violated by testimony by the People‘s expert DNA analyst that made reference to data gathered by nontestifying technicians (see People v Brown, 13 NY3d 332 [2009]). Williams v Illinois (567 US —, —, 132 S Ct 2221, 2242-2244 [2012]) provides further support for the proposition that the DNA evidence in this case did not violate the Confrontation Clause.

The court erred in ruling that class sign-in sheets from the program defendant was enrolled in on the date of the crime were admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. The evidence did not establish that these records were kept “regularly, systematically[ and] routinely” (People v Kennedy, 68 NY2d 569, 579 [1986]), or that if kept in the regular course of business, they were “needed and relied on in the performance of the functions of the business” (People v Cratsley, 86 NY2d 81, 89 [1995]). There was no other basis for admissibility. However, the error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant‘s guilt, including the DNA match (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230 [1975]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

(Note: The next opinion follows on the same page.)

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v Dwayne SINGLETON, Appellant.

[951 NYS2d 671]

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York

The court provided an appropriate reduction of defendant‘s sentence pursuant to CPL 440.46, and we perceive no basis for a further reduction. Although the new sentence extended defendant‘s period of supervision beyond what would have been the maximum expiration date of the original sentence, nothing in CPL 440.46 rendered this resentence impermissible. The resentence had the ameliorative effect of allowing defendant to gain early release from prison, as a result of the relationship between the resentence and another sentence defendant was serving. The resentence was structured to benefit defendant, who received the exact sentence to which he had agreed (see People v Mack, 78 AD3d 520, 521 [1st Dept 2010], lv denied 16 NY3d 833 [2011]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

(Note: The next opinion starts on this page.)

SPRINGWELL NAVIGATION CORP., Respondent, v SANLUIS CORPORACION, S.A., Appellant.

[952 NYS2d 128]

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York

In this breach of contract action, defendant does not deny that it issued the subject unrestricted global note (UGN), that it was obligated to make certain interest and principal payments thereunder, and that it failed to make the required payments. Its sole argument is that plaintiff failed to demonstrate that it was the holder of a beneficial interest in the UGN. We have already held that plaintiff had standing to bring this suit in the registered holder‘s stead (Springwell Nav. Corp. v Sanluis Corporacion, S.A., 81 AD3d 557 [1st Dept 2011]). Thus, plaintiff was not required to establish that it was the holder.

We have considered defendant‘s remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

(Note: The next opinion starts on this page.)

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v Luis ARANA, Also Known as Fernando FRANCO, Appellant.

[951 NYS2d 866]

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York

The People correctly concede that defendant is entitled to be brought before the court, provided with assigned counsel if eligible, and offered an opportunity to be heard on his motion for resentencing on his class B felony convictions. Although the sentences at issue run concurrently with the life sentences defendant is serving on his class A-1 felony convictions, and this Court has upheld the denial of resentencing on those convictions (People v Arana, 45 AD3d 311 [1st Dept 2007], lv dismissed 9 NY3d 1031 [2008]), the statutory procedural requirements still apply (see People v Diaz, 68 AD3d 497 [1st Dept 2009]). However, the motion court is under no obligation to conduct an evidentiary hearing.

Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

(End of document content provided) null

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v Luis VARGAS, Appellant.

[952 NYS2d 41]

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York

Defendant‘s right of confrontation was not violated by testimony by the People‘s expert DNA analyst that made reference to data gathered by nontestifying technicians (see People v Brown, 13 NY3d 332 [2009]). Williams v Illinois (567 US —, —, 132 S Ct 2221, 2242-2244 [2012]) provides further support for the proposition that the DNA evidence in this case did not violate the Confrontation Clause.

The court erred in ruling that class sign-in sheets from the program defendant was enrolled in on the date of the crime were admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. The evidence did not establish that these records were kept “regularly, systematically[ and] routinely” (People v Kennedy, 68 NY2d 569, 579 [1986]), or that if kept in the regular course of business, they were “needed and relied on in the performance of the functions of the business” (People v Cratsley, 86 NY2d 81, 89 [1995]). There was no other basis for admissibility. However, the error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant‘s guilt, including the DNA match (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230 [1975]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

(End of first opinion) null

The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Luis Vargas, Appellant.

[952 NYS2d 41]

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York

Defendant‘s right of confrontation was not violated by testimony by the People‘s expert DNA analyst that made reference to data gathered by nontestifying technicians (see People v Brown, 13 NY3d 332 [2009]). Williams v Illinois (567 US —, —, 132 S Ct 2221, 2242-2244 [2012]) provides further support for the proposition that the DNA evidence in this case did not violate the Confrontation Clause.

The court erred in ruling that class sign-in sheets from the program defendant was enrolled in on the date of the crime were admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. The evidence did not establish that these records were kept “regularly, systematically[ and] routinely” (People v Kennedy, 68 NY2d 569, 579 [1986]), or that if kept in the regular course of business, they were “needed and relied on in the performance of the functions of the business” (People v Cratsley, 86 NY2d 81, 89 [1995]). There was no other basis for admissibility. However, the error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant‘s guilt, including the DNA match (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230 [1975]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

(End of first opinion) null

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v Luis VARGAS, Appellant.

[952 NYS2d 41]

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York

Defendant‘s right of confrontation was not violated by testimony by the People‘s expert DNA analyst that made reference to data gathered by nontestifying technicians (see People v Brown, 13 NY3d 332 [2009]). Williams v Illinois (567 US —, —, 132 S Ct 2221, 2242-2244 [2012]) provides further support for the proposition that the DNA evidence in this case did not violate the Confrontation Clause.

The court erred in ruling that class sign-in sheets from the program defendant was enrolled in on the date of the crime were admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. The evidence did not establish that these records were kept “regularly, systematically[ and] routinely” (People v Kennedy, 68 NY2d 569, 579 [1986]), or that if kept in the regular course of business, they were “needed and relied on in the performance of the functions of the business” (People v Cratsley, 86 NY2d 81, 89 [1995]). There was no other basis for admissibility. However, the error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant‘s guilt, including the DNA match (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230 [1975]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

(End of first opinion) null

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v Luis VARGAS, Appellant.

[952 NYS2d 41]

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York

Defendant‘s right of confrontation was not violated by testimony by the People‘s expert DNA analyst that made reference to data gathered by nontestifying technicians (see People v Brown, 13 NY3d 332 [2009]). Williams v Illinois (567 US —, —, 132 S Ct 2221, 2242-2244 [2012]) provides further support for the proposition that the DNA evidence in this case did not violate the Confrontation Clause.

The court erred in ruling that class sign-in sheets from the program defendant was enrolled in on the date of the crime were admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. The evidence did not establish that these records were kept “regularly, systematically[ and] routinely” (People v Kennedy, 68 NY2d 569, 579 [1986]), or that if kept in the regular course of business, they were “needed and relied on in the performance of the functions of the business” (People v Cratsley, 86 NY2d 81, 89 [1995]). There was no other basis for admissibility. However, the error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant‘s guilt, including the DNA match (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230 [1975]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

(End of first opinion) null

The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Luis Vargas, Appellant.

[952 NYS2d 41]

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department

Defendant‘s right of confrontation was not violated by testimony by the People‘s expert DNA analyst that made reference to data gathered by nontestifying technicians (see People v Brown, 13 NY3d 332 [2009]). Williams v Illinois (567 US —, —, 132 S Ct 2221, 2242-2244 [2012]) provides further support for the proposition that the DNA evidence in this case did not violate the Confrontation Clause.

The court erred in ruling that class sign-in sheets from the program defendant was enrolled in on the date of the crime were admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. The evidence did not establish that these records were kept “regularly, systematically[ and] routinely” (People v Kennedy, 68 NY2d 569, 579 [1986]), or that if kept in the regular course of business, they were “needed and relied on in the performance of the functions of the business” (People v Cratsley, 86 NY2d 81, 89 [1995]). There was no other basis for admissibility. However, the error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant‘s guilt, including the DNA match (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230 [1975]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

(End of first opinion) null

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v Luis VARGAS, Appellant.

[952 NYS2d 41]

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York

Defendant‘s right of confrontation was not violated by testimony by the People‘s expert DNA analyst that made reference to data gathered by nontestifying technicians (see People v Brown, 13 NY3d 332 [2009]). Williams v Illinois (567 US —, —, 132 S Ct 2221, 2242-2244 [2012]) provides further support for the proposition that the DNA evidence in this case did not violate the Confrontation Clause.

The court erred in ruling that class sign-in sheets from the program defendant was enrolled in on the date of the crime were admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. The evidence did not establish that these records were kept “regularly, systematically[ and] routinely” (People v Kennedy, 68 NY2d 569, 579 [1986]), or that if kept in the regular course of business, they were “needed and relied on in the performance of the functions of the business” (People v Cratsley, 86 NY2d 81, 89 [1995]). There was no other basis for admissibility. However, the error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant‘s guilt, including the DNA match (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230 [1975]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

(End of first opinion) null

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v Luis VARGAS, Appellant.

[952 NYS2d 41]

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York

Defendant‘s right of confrontation was not violated by testimony by the People‘s expert DNA analyst that made reference to data gathered by nontestifying technicians (see People v Brown, 13 NY3d 332 [2009]). Williams v Illinois (567 US —, —, 132 S Ct 2221, 2242-2244 [2012]) provides further support for the proposition that the DNA evidence in this case did not violate the Confrontation Clause.

The court erred in ruling that class sign-in sheets from the program defendant was enrolled in on the date of the crime were admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. The evidence did not establish that these records were kept “regularly, systematically[ and] routinely” (People v Kennedy, 68 NY2d 569, 579 [1986]), or that if kept in the regular course of business, they were “needed and relied on in the performance of the functions of the business” (People v Cratsley, 86 NY2d 81, 89 [1995]). There was no other basis for admissibility. However, the error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant‘s guilt, including the DNA match (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230 [1975]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

(End of first opinion) null

The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Luis Vargas, Appellant.

[952 NYS2d 41]

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York

Defendant‘s right of confrontation was not violated by testimony by the People‘s expert DNA analyst that made reference to data gathered by nontestifying technicians (see People v Brown, 13 NY3d 332 [2009]). Williams v Illinois (567 US —, —, 132 S Ct 2221, 2242-2244 [2012]) provides further support for the proposition that the DNA evidence in this case did not violate the Confrontation Clause.

The court erred in ruling that class sign-in sheets from the program defendant was enrolled in on the date of the crime were admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. The evidence did not establish that these records were kept “regularly, systematically[ and] routinely” (People v Kennedy, 68 NY2d 569, 579 [1986]), or that if kept in the regular course of business, they were “needed and relied on in the performance of the functions of the business” (People v Cratsley, 86 NY2d 81, 89 [1995]). There was no other basis for admissibility. However, the error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant‘s guilt, including the DNA match (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230 [1975]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

(End of first opinion) null

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v Luis VARGAS, Appellant.

[952 NYS2d 41]

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York

Defendant‘s right of confrontation was not violated by testimony by the People‘s expert DNA analyst that made reference to data gathered by nontestifying technicians (see People v Brown, 13 NY3d 332 [2009]). Williams v Illinois (567 US —, —, 132 S Ct 2221, 2242-2244 [2012]) provides further support for the proposition that the DNA evidence in this case did not violate the Confrontation Clause.

The court erred in ruling that class sign-in sheets from the program defendant was enrolled in on the date of the crime were admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. The evidence did not establish that these records were kept “regularly, systematically[ and] routinely” (People v Kennedy, 68 NY2d 569, 579 [1986]), or that if kept in the regular course of business, they were “needed and relied on in the performance of the functions of the business” (People v Cratsley, 86 NY2d 81, 89 [1995]). There was no other basis for admissibility. However, the error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant‘s guilt, including the DNA match (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230 [1975]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

(End of first opinion) null

The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Luis Vargas, Appellant.

[952 NYS2d 41]

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York

Defendant‘s right of confrontation was not violated by testimony by the People‘s expert DNA analyst that made reference to data gathered by nontestifying technicians (see People v Brown, 13 NY3d 332 [2009]). Williams v Illinois (567 US —, —, 132 S Ct 2221, 2242-2244 [2012]) provides further support for the proposition that the DNA evidence in this case did not violate the Confrontation Clause.

The court erred in ruling that class sign-in sheets from the program defendant was enrolled in on the date of the crime were admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. The evidence did not establish that these records were kept “regularly, systematically[ and] routinely” (People v Kennedy, 68 NY2d 569, 579 [1986]), or that if kept in the regular course of business, they were “needed and relied on in the performance of the functions of the business” (People v Cratsley, 86 NY2d 81, 89 [1995]). There was no other basis for admissibility. However, the error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant‘s guilt, including the DNA match (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230 [1975]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

(End of first opinion) null

The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Luis Vargas, Appellant.

[952 NYS2d 41]

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York

Defendant‘s right of confrontation was not violated by testimony by the People‘s expert DNA analyst that made reference to data gathered by nontestifying technicians (see People v Brown, 13 NY3d 332 [2009]). Williams v Illinois (567 US —, —, 132 S Ct 2221, 2242-2244 [2012]) provides further support for the proposition that the DNA evidence in this case did not violate the Confrontation Clause.

The court erred in ruling that class sign-in sheets from the program defendant was enrolled in on the date of the crime were admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. The evidence did not establish that these records were kept “regularly, systematically[ and] routinely” (People v Kennedy, 68 NY2d 569, 579 [1986]), or that if kept in the regular course of business, they were “needed and relied on in the performance of the functions of the business” (People v Cratsley, 86 NY2d 81, 89 [1995]). There was no other basis for admissibility. However, the error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant‘s guilt, including the DNA match (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230 [1975]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

(End of first opinion) null

The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Luis Vargas, Appellant.

[952 NYS2d 41]

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York

Defendant‘s right of confrontation was not violated by testimony by the People‘s expert DNA analyst that made reference to data gathered by nontestifying technicians (see People v Brown, 13 NY3d 332 [2009]). Williams v Illinois (567 US —, —, 132 S Ct 2221, 2242-2244 [2012]) provides further support for the proposition that the DNA evidence in this case did not violate the Confrontation Clause.

The court erred in ruling that class sign-in sheets from the program defendant was enrolled in on the date of the crime were admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. The evidence did not establish that these records were kept “regularly, systematically[ and] routinely” (People v Kennedy, 68 NY2d 569, 579 [1986]), or that if kept in the regular course of business, they were “needed and relied on in the performance of the functions of the business” (People v Cratsley, 86 NY2d 81, 89 [1995]). There was no other basis for admissibility. However, the error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant‘s guilt, including the DNA match (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230 [1975]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

(End of first opinion) null

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v Luis VARGAS, Appellant.

[952 NYS2d 41]

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York

Defendant‘s right of confrontation was not violated by testimony by the People‘s expert DNA analyst that made reference to data gathered by nontestifying technicians (see People v Brown, 13 NY3d 332 [2009]). Williams v Illinois (567 US —, —, 132 S Ct 2221, 2242-2244 [2012]) provides further support for the proposition that the DNA evidence in this case did not violate the Confrontation Clause.

The court erred in ruling that class sign-in sheets from the program defendant was enrolled in on the date of the crime were admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. The evidence did not establish that these records were kept “regularly, systematically[ and] routinely” (People v Kennedy, 68 NY2d 569, 579 [1986]), or that if kept in the regular course of business, they were “needed and relied on in the performance of the functions of the business” (People v Cratsley, 86 NY2d 81, 89 [1995]). There was no other basis for admissibility. However, the error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant‘s guilt, including the DNA match (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230 [1975]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

(End of first opinion) null

The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Luis Vargas, Appellant.

[952 NYS2d 41]

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York

Defendant‘s right of confrontation was not violated by testimony by the People‘s expert DNA analyst that made reference to data gathered by nontestifying technicians (see People v Brown, 13 NY3d 332 [2009]). Williams v Illinois (567 US —, —, 132 S Ct 2221, 2242-2244 [2012]) provides further support for the proposition that the DNA evidence in this case did not violate the Confrontation Clause.

The court erred in ruling that class sign-in sheets from the program defendant was enrolled in on the date of the crime were admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. The evidence did not establish that these records were kept “regularly, systematically[ and] routinely” (People v Kennedy, 68 NY2d 569, 579 [1986]), or that if kept in the regular course of business, they were “needed and relied on in the performance of the functions of the business” (People v Cratsley, 86 NY2d 81, 89 [1995]). There was no other basis for admissibility. However, the error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant‘s guilt, including the DNA match (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230 [1975]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

(End of first opinion) null

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v Luis VARGAS, Appellant.

[952 NYS2d 41]

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York

Defendant‘s right of confrontation was not violated by testimony by the People‘s expert DNA analyst that made reference to data gathered by nontestifying technicians (see People v Brown, 13 NY3d 332 [2009]). Williams v Illinois (567 US —, —, 132 S Ct 2221, 2242-2244 [2012]) provides further support for the proposition that the DNA evidence in this case did not violate the Confrontation Clause.

The court erred in ruling that class sign-in sheets from the program defendant was enrolled in on the date of the crime were admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. The evidence did not establish that these records were kept “regularly, systematically[ and] routinely” (People v Kennedy, 68 NY2d 569, 579 [1986]), or that if kept in the regular course of business, they were “needed and relied on in the performance of the functions of the business” (People v Cratsley, 86 NY2d 81, 89 [1995]). There was no other basis for admissibility. However, the error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant‘s guilt, including the DNA match (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230 [1975]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

(End of first opinion) null

The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Luis Vargas, Appellant.

[952 NYS2d 41]

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York

Defendant‘s right of confrontation was not violated by testimony by the People‘s expert DNA analyst that made reference to data gathered by nontestifying technicians (see People v Brown, 13 NY3d 332 [2009]). Williams v Illinois (567 US —, —, 132 S Ct 2221, 2242-2244 [2012]) provides further support for the proposition that the DNA evidence in this case did not violate the Confrontation Clause.

The court erred in ruling that class sign-in sheets from the program defendant was enrolled in on the date of the crime were admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. The evidence did not establish that these records were kept “regularly, systematically[ and] routinely” (People v Kennedy, 68 NY2d 569, 579 [1986]), or that if kept in the regular course of business, they were “needed and relied on in the performance of the functions of the business” (People v Cratsley, 86 NY2d 81, 89 [1995]). There was no other basis for admissibility. However, the error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant‘s guilt, including the DNA match (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230 [1975]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

(End of first opinion) null

The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Luis Vargas, Appellant.

[952 NYS2d 41]

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York

Defendant‘s right of confrontation was not violated by testimony by the People‘s expert DNA analyst that made reference to data gathered by nontestifying technicians (see People v Brown, 13 NY3d 332 [2009]). Williams v Illinois (567 US —, —, 132 S Ct 2221, 2242-2244 [2012]) provides further support for the proposition that the DNA evidence in this case did not violate the Confrontation Clause.

The court erred in ruling that class sign-in sheets from the program defendant was enrolled in on the date of the crime were admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. The evidence did not establish that these records were kept “regularly, systematically[ and] routinely” (People v Kennedy, 68 NY2d 569, 579 [1986]), or that if kept in the regular course of business, they were “needed and relied on in the performance of the functions of the business” (People v Cratsley, 86 NY2d 81, 89 [1995]). There was no other basis for admissibility. However, the error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant‘s guilt, including the DNA match (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230 [1975]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

(End of first opinion) null

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v Luis VARGAS, Appellant.

[952 NYS2d 41]

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York

Defendant‘s right of confrontation was not violated by testimony by the People‘s expert DNA analyst that made reference to data gathered by nontestifying technicians (see People v Brown, 13 NY3d 332 [2009]). Williams v Illinois (567 US —, —, 132 S Ct 2221, 2242-2244 [2012]) provides further support for the proposition that the DNA evidence in this case did not violate the Confrontation Clause.

The court erred in ruling that class sign-in sheets from the program defendant was enrolled in on the date of the crime were admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. The evidence did not establish that these records were kept “regularly, systematically[ and] routinely” (People v Kennedy, 68 NY2d 569, 579 [1986]), or that if kept in the regular course of business, they were “needed and relied on in the performance of the functions of the business” (People v Cratsley, 86 NY2d 81, 89 [1995]). There was no other basis for admissibility. However, the error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant‘s guilt, including the DNA match (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230 [1975]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

(End of first opinion) null

The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Luis Vargas, Appellant.

[952 NYS2d 41]

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York

Defendant‘s right of confrontation was not violated by testimony by the People‘s expert DNA analyst that made reference to data gathered by nontestifying technicians (see People v Brown, 13 NY3d 332 [2009]). Williams v Illinois (567 US —, —, 132 S Ct 2221, 2242-2244 [2012]) provides further support for the proposition that the DNA evidence in this case did not violate the Confrontation Clause.

The court erred in ruling that class sign-in sheets from the program defendant was enrolled in on the date of the crime were admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. The evidence did not establish that these records were kept “regularly, systematically[ and] routinely” (People v Kennedy, 68 NY2d 569, 579 [1986]), or that if kept in the regular course of business, they were “needed and relied on in the performance of the functions of the business” (People v Cratsley, 86 NY2d 81, 89 [1995]). There was no other basis for admissibility. However, the error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant‘s guilt, including the DNA match (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230 [1975]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

(End of first opinion) null

The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Luis Vargas, Appellant.

[952 NYS2d 41]

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York

Defendant‘s right of confrontation was not violated by testimony by the People‘s expert DNA analyst that made reference to data gathered by nontestifying technicians (see People v Brown, 13 NY3d 332 [2009]). Williams v Illinois (567 US —, —, 132 S Ct 2221, 2242-2244 [2012]) provides further support for the proposition that the DNA evidence in this case did not violate the Confrontation Clause.

The court erred in ruling that class sign-in sheets from the program defendant was enrolled in on the date of the crime were admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. The evidence did not establish that these records were kept “regularly, systematically[ and] routinely” (People v Kennedy, 68 NY2d 569, 579 [1986]), or that if kept in the regular course of business, they were “needed and relied on in the performance of the functions of the business” (People v Cratsley, 86 NY2d 81, 89 [1995]). There was no other basis for admissibility. However, the error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant‘s guilt, including the DNA match (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230 [1975]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

(End of first opinion) null

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v Luis VARGAS, Appellant.

[952 NYS2d 41]

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York

Defendant‘s right of confrontation was not violated by testimony by the People‘s expert DNA analyst that made reference to data gathered by nontestifying technicians (see People v Brown, 13 NY3d 332 [2009]). Williams v Illinois (567 US —, —, 132 S Ct 2221, 2242-2244 [2012]) provides further support for the proposition that the DNA evidence in this case did not violate the Confrontation Clause.

The court erred in ruling that class sign-in sheets from the program defendant was enrolled in on the date of the crime were admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. The evidence did not establish that these records were kept “regularly, systematically[ and] routinely” (People v Kennedy, 68 NY2d 569, 579 [1986]), or that if kept in the regular course of business, they were “needed and relied on in the performance of the functions of the business” (People v Cratsley, 86 NY2d 81, 89 [1995]). There was no other basis for admissibility. However, the error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant‘s guilt, including the DNA match (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230 [1975]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

(End of first opinion) null

The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Luis Vargas, Appellant.

[952 NYS2d 41]

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York

Defendant‘s right of confrontation was not violated by testimony by the People‘s expert DNA analyst that made reference to data gathered by nontestifying technicians (see People v Brown, 13 NY3d 332 [2009]). Williams v Illinois (567 US —, —, 132 S Ct 2221, 2242-2244 [2012]) provides further support for the proposition that the DNA evidence in this case did not violate the Confrontation Clause.

The court erred in ruling that class sign-in sheets from the program defendant was enrolled in on the date of the crime were admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. The evidence did not establish that these records were kept “regularly, systematically[ and] routinely” (People v Kennedy, 68 NY2d 569, 579 [1986]), or that if kept in the regular course of business, they were “needed and relied on in the performance of the functions of the business” (People v Cratsley, 86 NY2d 81, 89 [1995]). There was no other basis for admissibility. However, the error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant‘s guilt, including the DNA match (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230 [1975]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

(End of first opinion) null

The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Luis Vargas, Appellant.

[952 NYS2d 41]

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York

Defendant‘s right of confrontation was not violated by testimony by the People‘s expert DNA analyst that made reference to data gathered by nontestifying technicians (see People v Brown, 13 NY3d 332 [2009]). Williams v Illinois (567 US —, —, 132 S Ct 2221, 2242-2244 [2012]) provides further support for the proposition that the DNA evidence in this case did not violate the Confrontation Clause.

The court erred in ruling that class sign-in sheets from the program defendant was enrolled in on the date of the crime were admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. The evidence did not establish that these records were kept “regularly, systematically[ and] routinely” (People v Kennedy, 68 NY2d 569, 579 [1986]), or that if kept in the regular course of business, they were “needed and relied on in the performance of the functions of the business” (People v Cratsley, 86 NY2d 81, 89 [1995]). There was no other basis for admissibility. However, the error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant‘s guilt, including the DNA match (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230 [1975]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

(End of first opinion) null

The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Luis Vargas, Appellant.

[952 NYS2d 41]

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York

Defendant‘s right of confrontation was not violated by testimony by the People‘s expert DNA analyst that made reference to data gathered by nontestifying technicians (see People v Brown, 13 NY3d 332 [2009]). Williams v Illinois (567 US —, —, 132 S Ct 2221, 2242-2244 [2012]) provides further support for the proposition that the DNA evidence in this case did not violate the Confrontation Clause.

The court erred in ruling that class sign-in sheets from the program defendant was enrolled in on the date of the crime were admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. The evidence did not establish that these records were kept “regularly, systematically[ and] routinely” (People v Kennedy, 68 NY2d 569, 579 [1986]), or that if kept in the regular course of business, they were “needed and relied on in the performance of the functions of the business” (People v Cratsley, 86 NY2d 81, 89 [1995]). There was no other basis for admissibility. However, the error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant‘s guilt, including the DNA match (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230 [1975]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

(End of first opinion) null

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v Luis VARGAS, Appellant.

[952 NYS2d 41]

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York

Defendant‘s right of confrontation was not violated by testimony by the People‘s expert DNA analyst that made reference to data gathered by nontestifying technicians (see People v Brown, 13 NY3d 332 [2009]). Williams v Illinois (567 US —, —, 132 S Ct 2221, 2242-2244 [2012]) provides further support for the proposition that the DNA evidence in this case did not violate the Confrontation Clause.

The court erred in ruling that class sign-in sheets from the program defendant was enrolled in on the date of the crime were admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. The evidence did not establish that these records were kept “regularly, systematically[ and] routinely” (People v Kennedy, 68 NY2d 569, 579 [1986]), or that if kept in the regular course of business, they were “needed and relied on in the performance of the functions of the business” (People v Cratsley, 86 NY2d 81, 89 [1995]). There was no other basis for admissibility. However, the error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant‘s guilt, including the DNA match (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230 [1975]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

(End of first opinion) null

The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Luis Vargas, Appellant.

[952 NYS2d 41]

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York

Defendant‘s right of confrontation was not violated by testimony by the People‘s expert DNA analyst that made reference to data gathered by nontestifying technicians (see People v Brown, 13 NY3d 332 [2009]). Williams v Illinois (567 US —, —, 132 S Ct 2221, 2242-2244 [2012]) provides further support for the proposition that the DNA evidence in this case did not violate the Confrontation Clause.

The court erred in ruling that class sign-in sheets from the program defendant was enrolled in on the date of the crime were admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. The evidence did not establish that these records were kept “regularly, systematically[ and] routinely” (People v Kennedy, 68 NY2d 569, 579 [1986]), or that if kept in the regular course of business, they were “needed and relied on in the performance of the functions of the business” (People v Cratsley, 86 NY2d 81, 89 [1995]). There was no other basis for admissibility. However, the error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant‘s guilt, including the DNA match (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230 [1975]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

(End of first opinion) null

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v Luis VARGAS, Appellant.

[952 NYS2d 41]

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York

Defendant‘s right of confrontation was not violated by testimony by the People‘s expert DNA analyst that made reference to data gathered by nontestifying technicians (see People v Brown, 13 NY3d 332 [2009]). Williams v Illinois (567 US —, —, 132 S Ct 2221, 2242-2244 [2012]) provides further support for the proposition that the DNA evidence in this case did not violate the Confrontation Clause.

The court erred in ruling that class sign-in sheets from the program defendant was enrolled in on the date of the crime were admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. The evidence did not establish that these records were kept “regularly, systematically[ and] routinely” (People v Kennedy, 68 NY2d 569, 579 [1986]), or that if kept in the regular course of business, they were “needed and relied on in the performance of the functions of the business” (People v Cratsley, 86 NY2d 81, 89 [1995]). There was no other basis for admissibility. However, the error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant‘s guilt, including the DNA match (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230 [1975]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

(End of first opinion) null

The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Luis Vargas, Appellant.

[952 NYS2d 41]

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York

Defendant‘s right of confrontation was not violated by testimony by the People‘s expert DNA analyst that made reference to data gathered by nontestifying technicians (see People v Brown, 13 NY3d 332 [2009]). Williams v Illinois (567 US —, —, 132 S Ct 2221, 2242-2244 [2012]) provides further support for the proposition that the DNA evidence in this case did not violate the Confrontation Clause.

The court erred in ruling that class sign-in sheets from the program defendant was enrolled in on the date of the crime were admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. The evidence did not establish that these records were kept “regularly, systematically[ and] routinely” (People v Kennedy, 68 NY2d 569, 579 [1986]), or that if kept in the regular course of business, they were “needed and relied on in the performance of the functions of the business” (People v Cratsley, 86 NY2d 81, 89 [1995]). There was no other basis for admissibility. However, the error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant‘s guilt, including the DNA match (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230 [1975]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

(End of first opinion) null

The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Luis Vargas, Appellant.

[952 NYS2d 41]

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York

Defendant‘s right of confrontation was not violated by testimony by the People‘s expert DNA analyst that made reference to data gathered by nontestifying technicians (see People v Brown, 13 NY3d 332 [2009]). Williams v Illinois (567 US —, —, 132 S Ct 2221, 2242-2244 [2012]) provides further support for the proposition that the DNA evidence in this case did not violate the Confrontation Clause.

The court erred in ruling that class sign-in sheets from the program defendant was enrolled in on the date of the crime were admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. The evidence did not establish that these records were kept “regularly, systematically[ and] routinely” (People v Kennedy, 68 NY2d 569, 579 [1986]), or that if kept in the regular course of business, they were “needed and relied on in the performance of the functions of the business” (People v Cratsley, 86 NY2d 81, 89 [1995]). There was no other basis for admissibility. However, the error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant‘s guilt, including the DNA match (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230 [1975]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

(End of first opinion) null

The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Luis Vargas, Appellant.

[952 NYS2d 41]

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York

Defendant‘s right of confrontation was not violated by testimony by the People‘s expert DNA analyst that made reference to data gathered by nontestifying technicians (see People v Brown, 13 NY3d 332 [2009]). Williams v Illinois (567 US —, —, 132 S Ct 2221, 2242-2244 [2012]) provides further support for the proposition that the DNA evidence in this case did not violate the Confrontation Clause.

The court erred in ruling that class sign-in sheets from the program defendant was enrolled in on the date of the crime were admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. The evidence did not establish that these records were kept “regularly, systematically[ and] routinely” (People v Kennedy, 68 NY2d 569, 579 [1986]), or that if kept in the regular course of business, they were “needed and relied on in the performance of the functions of the business” (People v Cratsley, 86 NY2d 81, 89 [1995]). There was no other basis for admissibility. However, the error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant‘s guilt, including the DNA match (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230 [1975]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

(End of first opinion) null

The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Luis Vargas, Appellant.

[952 NYS2d 41]

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York

Defendant‘s right of confrontation was not violated by testimony by the People‘s expert DNA analyst that made reference to data gathered by nontestifying technicians (see People v Brown, 13 NY3d 332 [2009]). Williams v Illinois (567 US —, —, 132 S Ct 2221, 2242-2244 [2012]) provides further support for the proposition that the DNA evidence in this case did not violate the Confrontation Clause.

The court erred in ruling that class sign-in sheets from the program defendant was enrolled in on the date of the crime were admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. The evidence did not establish that these records were kept “regularly, systematically[ and] routinely” (People v Kennedy, 68 NY2d 569, 579 [1986]), or that if kept in the regular course of business, they were “needed and relied on in the performance of the functions of the business” (People v Cratsley, 86 NY2d 81, 89 [1995]). There was no other basis for admissibility. However, the error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant‘s guilt, including the DNA match (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230 [1975]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

(End of first opinion) null

The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Luis Vargas, Appellant.

[952 NYS2d 41]

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York

Defendant‘s right of confrontation was not violated by testimony by the People‘s expert DNA analyst that made reference to data gathered by nontestifying technicians (see People v Brown, 13 NY3d 332 [2009]). Williams v Illinois (567 US —, —, 132 S Ct 2221, 2242-2244 [2012]) provides further support for the proposition that the DNA evidence in this case did not violate the Confrontation Clause.

The court erred in ruling that class sign-in sheets from the program defendant was enrolled in on the date of the crime were admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. The evidence did not establish that these records were kept “regularly, systematically[ and] routinely” (People v Kennedy, 68 NY2d 569, 579 [1986]), or that if kept in the regular course of business, they were “needed and relied on in the performance of the functions of the business” (People v Cratsley, 86 NY2d 81, 89 [1995]). There was no other basis for admissibility. However, the error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant‘s guilt, including the DNA match (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230 [1975]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

(End of first opinion) null

The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Luis Vargas, Appellant.

[952 NYS2d 41]

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York

Defendant‘s right of confrontation was not violated by testimony by the People‘s expert DNA analyst that made reference to data gathered by nontestifying technicians (see People v Brown, 13 NY3d 332 [2009]). Williams v Illinois (567 US —, —, 132 S Ct 2221, 2242-2244 [2012]) provides further support for the proposition that the DNA evidence in this case did not violate the Confrontation Clause.

The court erred in ruling that class sign-in sheets from the program defendant was enrolled in on the date of the crime were admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. The evidence did not establish that these records were kept “regularly, systematically[ and] routinely” (People v Kennedy, 68 NY2d 569, 579 [1986]), or that if kept in the regular course of business, they were “needed and relied on in the performance of the functions of the business” (People v Cratsley, 86 NY2d 81, 89 [1995]). There was no other basis for admissibility. However, the error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant‘s guilt, including the DNA match (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230 [1975]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

(End of first opinion) null

The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Luis Vargas, Appellant.

[952 NYS2d 41]

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York

Defendant‘s right of confrontation was not violated by testimony by the People‘s expert DNA analyst that made reference to data gathered by nontestifying technicians (see People v Brown, 13 NY3d 332 [2009]). Williams v Illinois (567 US —, —, 132 S Ct 2221, 2242-2244 [2012]) provides further support for the proposition that the DNA evidence in this case did not violate the Confrontation Clause.

The court erred in ruling that class sign-in sheets from the program defendant was enrolled in on the date of the crime were admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. The evidence did not establish that these records were kept “regularly, systematically[ and] routinely” (People v Kennedy, 68 NY2d 569, 579 [1986]), or that if kept in the regular course of business, they were “needed and relied on in the performance of the functions of the business” (People v Cratsley, 86 NY2d 81, 89 [1995]). There was no other basis for admissibility. However, the error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant‘s guilt, including the DNA match (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230 [1975]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

(End of first opinion) null

The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Luis Vargas, Appellant.

[952 NYS2d 41]

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York

Defendant‘s right of confrontation was not violated by testimony by the People‘s expert DNA analyst that made reference to data gathered by nontestifying technicians (see People v Brown, 13 NY3d 332 [2009]). Williams v Illinois (567 US —, —, 132 S Ct 2221, 2242-2244 [2012]) provides further support for the proposition that the DNA evidence in this case did not violate the Confrontation Clause.

The court erred in ruling that class sign-in sheets from the program defendant was enrolled in on the date of the crime were admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. The evidence did not establish that these records were kept “regularly, systematically[ and] routinely” (People v Kennedy, 68 NY2d 569, 579 [1986]), or that if kept in the regular course of business, they were “needed and relied on in the performance of the functions of the business” (People v Cratsley, 86 NY2d 81, 89 [1995]). There was no other basis for admissibility. However, the error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant‘s guilt, including the DNA match (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230 [1975]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

(End of first opinion) null

The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Luis Vargas, Appellant.

[952 NYS2d 41]

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York

Defendant‘s right of confrontation was not violated by testimony by the People‘s expert DNA analyst that made reference to data gathered by nontestifying technicians (see People v Brown, 13 NY3d 332 [2009]). Williams v Illinois (567 US —, —, 132 S Ct 2221, 2242-2244 [2012]) provides further support for the proposition that the DNA evidence in this case did not violate the Confrontation Clause.

The court erred in ruling that class sign-in sheets from the program defendant was enrolled in on the date of the crime were admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. The evidence did not establish that these records were kept “regularly, systematically[ and] routinely” (People v Kennedy, 68 NY2d 569, 579 [1986]), or that if kept in the regular course of business, they were “needed and relied on in the performance of the functions of the business” (People v Cratsley, 86 NY2d 81, 89 [1995]). There was no other basis for admissibility. However, the error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant‘s guilt, including the DNA match (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230 [1975]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

(End of first opinion) null

The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Luis Vargas, Appellant.

[952 NYS2d 41]

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York

Defendant‘s right of confrontation was not violated by testimony by the People‘s expert DNA analyst that made reference to data gathered by nontestifying technicians (see People v Brown, 13 NY3d 332 [2009]). Williams v Illinois (567 US —, —, 132 S Ct 2221, 2242-2244 [2012]) provides further support for the proposition that the DNA evidence in this case did not violate the Confrontation Clause.

The court erred in ruling that class sign-in sheets from the program defendant was enrolled in on the date of the crime were admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. The evidence did not establish that these records were kept “regularly, systematically[ and] routinely” (People v Kennedy, 68 NY2d 569, 579 [1986]), or that if kept in the regular course of business, they were “needed and relied on in the performance of the functions of the business” (People v Cratsley, 86 NY2d 81, 89 [1995]). There was no other basis for admissibility. However, the error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant‘s guilt, including the DNA match (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230 [1975]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

(End of first opinion) null

The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Luis Vargas, Appellant.

[952 NYS2d 41]

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York

Defendant‘s right of confrontation was not violated by testimony by the People‘s expert DNA analyst that made reference to data gathered by nontestifying technicians (see People v Brown, 13 NY3d 332 [2009]). Williams v Illinois (567 US —, —, 132 S Ct 2221, 2242-2244 [2012]) provides further support for the proposition that the DNA evidence in this case did not violate the Confrontation Clause.

The court erred in ruling that class sign-in sheets from the program defendant was enrolled in on the date of the crime were admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. The evidence did not establish that these records were kept “regularly, systematically[ and] routinely” (People v Kennedy, 68 NY2d 569, 579 [1986]), or that if kept in the regular course of business, they were “needed and relied on in the performance of the functions of the business” (People v Cratsley, 86 NY2d 81, 89 [1995]). There was no other basis for admissibility. However, the error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant‘s guilt, including the DNA match (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230 [1975]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

(End of first opinion) null

The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Luis Vargas, Appellant.

[952 NYS2d 41]

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York

Defendant‘s right of confrontation was not violated by testimony by the People‘s expert DNA analyst that made reference to data gathered by nontestifying technicians (see People v Brown, 13 NY3d 332 [2009]). Williams v Illinois (567 US —, —, 132 S Ct 2221, 2242-2244 [2012]) provides further support for the proposition that the DNA evidence in this case did not violate the Confrontation Clause.

The court erred in ruling that class sign-in sheets from the program defendant was enrolled in on the date of the crime were admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. The evidence did not establish that these records were kept “regularly, systematically[ and] routinely” (People v Kennedy, 68 NY2d 569, 579 [1986]), or that if kept in the regular course of business, they were “needed and relied on in the performance of the functions of the business” (People v Cratsley, 86 NY2d 81, 89 [1995]). There was no other basis for admissibility. However, the error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant‘s guilt, including the DNA match (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230 [1975]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

(End of first opinion) null

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v Luis VARGAS, Appellant.

[952 NYS2d 41]

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York

Defendant‘s right of confrontation was not violated by testimony by the People‘s expert DNA analyst that made reference to data gathered by nontestifying technicians (see People v Brown, 13 NY3d 332 [2009]). Williams v Illinois (567 US —, —, 132 S Ct 2221, 2242-2244 [2012]) provides further support for the proposition that the DNA evidence in this case did not violate the Confrontation Clause.

The court erred in ruling that class sign-in sheets from the program defendant was enrolled in on the date of the crime were admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. The evidence did not establish that these records were kept “regularly, systematically[ and] routinely” (People v Kennedy, 68 NY2d 569, 579 [1986]), or that if kept in the regular course of business, they were “needed and relied on in the performance of the functions of the business” (People v Cratsley, 86 NY2d 81, 89 [1995]). There was no other basis for admissibility. However, the error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant‘s guilt, including the DNA match (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230 [1975]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

(End of first opinion) null

The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Luis Vargas, Appellant.

[952 NYS2d 41]

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York

Defendant‘s right of confrontation was not violated by testimony by the People‘s expert DNA analyst that made reference to data gathered by nontestifying technicians (see People v Brown, 13 NY3d 332 [2009]). Williams v Illinois (567 US —, —, 132 S Ct 2221, 2242-2244 [2012]) provides further support for the proposition that the DNA evidence in this case did not violate the Confrontation Clause.

The court erred in ruling that class sign-in sheets from the program defendant was enrolled in on the date of the crime were admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. The evidence did not establish that these records were kept “regularly, systematically[ and] routinely” (People v Kennedy, 68 NY2d 569, 579 [1986]), or that if kept in the regular course of business, they were “needed and relied on in the performance of the functions of the business” (People v Cratsley, 86 NY2d 81, 89 [1995]). There was no other basis for admissibility. However, the error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant‘s guilt, including the DNA match (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230 [1975]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

(End of first opinion) null

The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Luis Vargas, Appellant.

[952 NYS2d 41]

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York

Defendant‘s right of confrontation was not violated by testimony by the People‘s expert DNA analyst that made reference to data gathered by nontestifying technicians (see People v Brown, 13 NY3d 332 [2009]). Williams v Illinois (567 US —, —, 132 S Ct 2221, 2242-2244 [2012]) provides further support for the proposition that the DNA evidence in this case did not violate the Confrontation Clause.

The court erred in ruling that class sign-in sheets from the program defendant was enrolled in on the date of the crime were admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. The evidence did not establish that these records were kept “regularly, systematically[ and] routinely” (People v Kennedy, 68 NY2d 569, 579 [1986]), or that if kept in the regular course of business, they were “needed and relied on in the performance of the functions of the business” (People v Cratsley, 86 NY2d 81, 89 [1995]). There was no other basis for admissibility. However, the error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant‘s guilt, including the DNA match (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230 [1975]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

(End of first opinion) null

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v Luis VARGAS, Appellant.

[952 NYS2d 41]

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York

Defendant‘s right of confrontation was not violated by testimony by the People‘s expert DNA analyst that made reference to data gathered by nontestifying technicians (see People v Brown, 13 NY3d 332 [2009]). Williams v Illinois (567 US —, —, 132 S Ct 2221, 2242-2244 [2012]) provides further support for the proposition that the DNA evidence in this case did not violate the Confrontation Clause.

The court erred in ruling that class sign-in sheets from the program defendant was enrolled in on the date of the crime were admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. The evidence did not establish that these records were kept “regularly, systematically[ and] routinely” (People v Kennedy, 68 NY2d 569, 579 [1986]), or that if kept in the regular course of business, they were “needed and relied on in the performance of the functions of the business” (People v Cratsley, 86 NY2d 81, 89 [1995]). There was no other basis for admissibility. However, the error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant‘s guilt, including the DNA match (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230 [1975]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

(End of first opinion) null

The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Luis Vargas, Appellant.

[952 NYS2d 41]

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York

Defendant‘s right of confrontation was not violated by testimony by the People‘s expert DNA analyst that made reference to data gathered by nontestifying technicians (see People v Brown, 13 NY3d 332 [2009]). Williams v Illinois (567 US —, —, 132 S Ct 2221, 2242-2244 [2012]) provides further support for the proposition that the DNA evidence in this case did not violate the Confrontation Clause.

The court erred in ruling that class sign-in sheets from the program defendant was enrolled in on the date of the crime were admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. The evidence did not establish that these records were kept “regularly, systematically[ and] routinely” (People v Kennedy, 68 NY2d 569, 579 [1986]), or that if kept in the regular course of business, they were “needed and relied on in the performance of the functions of the business” (People v Cratsley, 86 NY2d 81, 89 [1995]). There was no other basis for admissibility. However, the error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant‘s guilt, including the DNA match (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230 [1975]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

(End of first opinion) null

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v Luis VARGAS, Appellant.

[952 NYS2d 41]

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York

Defendant‘s right of confrontation was not violated by testimony by the People‘s expert DNA analyst that made reference to data gathered by nontestifying technicians (see People v Brown, 13 NY3d 332 [2009]). Williams v Illinois (567 US —, —, 132 S Ct 2221, 2242-2244 [2012]) provides further support for the proposition that the DNA evidence in this case did not violate the Confrontation Clause.

The court erred in ruling that class sign-in sheets from the program defendant was enrolled in on the date of the crime were admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. The evidence did not establish that these records were kept “regularly, systematically[ and] routinely” (People v Kennedy, 68 NY2d 569, 579 [1986]), or that if kept in the regular course of business, they were “needed and relied on in the performance of the functions of the business” (People v Cratsley, 86 NY2d 81, 89 [1995]). There was no other basis for admissibility. However, the error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant‘s guilt, including the DNA match (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230 [1975]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

(End of first opinion) null

The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Luis Vargas, Appellant.

[952 NYS2d 41]

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York

Defendant‘s right of confrontation was not violated by testimony by the People‘s expert DNA analyst that made reference to data gathered by nontestifying technicians (see People v Brown, 13 NY3d 332 [2009]). Williams v Illinois (567 US —, —, 132 S Ct 2221, 2242-2244 [2012]) provides further support for the proposition that the DNA evidence in this case did not violate the Confrontation Clause.

The court erred in ruling that class sign-in sheets from the program defendant was enrolled in on the date of the crime were admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. The evidence did not establish that these records were kept “regularly, systematically[ and] routinely” (People v Kennedy, 68 NY2d 569, 579 [1986]), or that if kept in the regular course of business, they were “needed and relied on in the performance of the functions of the business” (People v Cratsley, 86 NY2d 81, 89 [1995]). There was no other basis for admissibility. However, the error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant‘s guilt, including the DNA match (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230 [1975]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

(End of first opinion) null

The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Luis Vargas, Appellant.

[952 NYS2d 41]

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York

Defendant‘s right of confrontation was not violated by testimony by the People‘s expert DNA analyst that made reference to data gathered by nontestifying technicians (see People v Brown, 13 NY3d 332 [2009]). Williams v Illinois (567 US —, —, 132 S Ct 2221, 2242-2244 [2012]) provides further support for the proposition that the DNA evidence in this case did not violate the Confrontation Clause.

The court erred in ruling that class sign-in sheets from the program defendant was enrolled in on the date of the crime were admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. The evidence did not establish that these records were kept “regularly, systematically[ and] routinely” (People v Kennedy, 68 NY2d 569, 579 [1986]), or that if kept in the regular course of business, they were “needed and relied on in the performance of the functions of the business” (People v Cratsley, 86 NY2d 81, 89 [1995]). There was no other basis for admissibility. However, the error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant‘s guilt, including the DNA match (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230 [1975]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

(End of first opinion) null

The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Luis Vargas, Appellant.

[952 NYS2d 41]

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York

Defendant‘s right of confrontation was not violated by testimony by the People‘s expert DNA analyst that made reference to data gathered by nontestifying technicians (see People v Brown, 13 NY3d 332 [2009]). Williams v Illinois (567 US —, —, 132 S Ct 2221, 2242-2244 [2012]) provides further support for the proposition that the DNA evidence in this case did not violate the Confrontation Clause.

The court erred in ruling that class sign-in sheets from the program defendant was enrolled in on the date of the crime were admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. The evidence did not establish that these records were kept “regularly, systematically[ and] routinely” (People v Kennedy, 68 NY2d 569, 579 [1986]), or that if kept in the regular course of business, they were “needed and relied on in the performance of the functions of the business” (People v Cratsley, 86 NY2d 81, 89 [1995]). There was no other basis for admissibility. However, the error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant‘s guilt, including the DNA match (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230 [1975]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

(End of first opinion) null

The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Luis Vargas, Appellant.

[952 NYS2d 41]

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York

Defendant‘s right of confrontation was not violated by testimony by the People‘s expert DNA analyst that made reference to data gathered by nontestifying technicians (see People v Brown, 13 NY3d 332 [2009]). Williams v Illinois (567 US —, —, 132 S Ct 2221, 2242-2244 [2012]) provides further support for the proposition that the DNA evidence in this case did not violate the Confrontation Clause.

The court erred in ruling that class sign-in sheets from the program defendant was enrolled in on the date of the crime were admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. The evidence did not establish that these records were kept “regularly, systematically[ and] routinely” (People v Kennedy, 68 NY2d 569, 579 [1986]), or that if kept in the regular course of business, they were “needed and relied on in the performance of the functions of the business” (People v Cratsley, 86 NY2d 81, 89 [1995]). There was no other basis for admissibility. However, the error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant‘s guilt, including the DNA match (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230 [1975]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

(End of first opinion) null

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v Luis VARGAS, Appellant.

[952 NYS2d 41]

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York

Defendant‘s right of confrontation was not violated by testimony by the People‘s expert DNA analyst that made reference to data gathered by nontestifying technicians (see People v Brown, 13 NY3d 332 [2009]). Williams v Illinois (567 US —, —, 132 S Ct 2221, 2242-2244 [2012]) provides further support for the proposition that the DNA evidence in this case did not violate the Confrontation Clause.

The court erred in ruling that class sign-in sheets from the program defendant was enrolled in on the date of the crime were admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. The evidence did not establish that these records were kept “regularly, systematically[ and] routinely” (People v Kennedy, 68 NY2d 569, 579 [1986]), or that if kept in the regular course of business, they were “needed and relied on in the performance of the functions of the business” (People v Cratsley, 86 NY2d 81, 89 [1995]). There was no other basis for admissibility. However, the error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant‘s guilt, including the DNA match (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230 [1975]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

(End of first opinion) null

The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Luis Vargas, Appellant.

[952 NYS2d 41]

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York

Defendant‘s right of confrontation was not violated by testimony by the People‘s expert DNA analyst that made reference to data gathered by nontestifying technicians (see People v Brown, 13 NY3d 332 [2009]). Williams v Illinois (567 US —, —, 132 S Ct 2221, 2242-2244 [2012]) provides further support for the proposition that the DNA evidence in this case did not violate the Confrontation Clause.

The court erred in ruling that class sign-in sheets from the program defendant was enrolled in on the date of the crime were admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. The evidence did not establish that these records were kept “regularly, systematically[ and] routinely” (People v Kennedy, 68 NY2d 569, 579 [1986]), or that if kept in the regular course of business, they were “needed and relied on in the performance of the functions of the business” (People v Cratsley, 86 NY2d 81, 89 [1995]). There was no other basis for admissibility. However, the error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant‘s guilt, including the DNA match (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230 [1975]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

(End of first opinion) null

The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Luis Vargas, Appellant.

[952 NYS2d 41]

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York

Defendant‘s right of confrontation was not violated by testimony by the People‘s expert DNA analyst that made reference to data gathered by nontestifying technicians (see People v Brown, 13 NY3d 332 [2009]). Williams v Illinois (567 US —, —, 132 S Ct 2221, 2242-2244 [2012]) provides further support for the proposition that the DNA evidence in this case did not violate the Confrontation Clause.

The court erred in ruling that class sign-in sheets from the program defendant was enrolled in on the date of the crime were admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. The evidence did not establish that these records were kept “regularly, systematically[ and] routinely” (People v Kennedy, 68 NY2d 569, 579 [1986]), or that if kept in the regular course of business, they were “needed and relied on in the performance of the functions of the business” (People v Cratsley, 86 NY2d 81, 89 [1995]). There was no other basis for admissibility. However, the error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant‘s guilt, including the DNA match (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230 [1975]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

(End of first opinion) null

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v Luis VARGAS, Appellant.

[952 NYS2d 41]

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York

Defendant‘s right of confrontation was not violated by testimony by the People‘s expert DNA analyst that made reference to data gathered by nontestifying technicians (see People v Brown, 13 NY3d 332 [2009]). Williams v Illinois (567 US —, —, 132 S Ct 2221, 2242-2244 [2012]) provides further support for the proposition that the DNA evidence in this case did not violate the Confrontation Clause.

The court erred in ruling that class sign-in sheets from the program defendant was enrolled in on the date of the crime were admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. The evidence did not establish that these records were kept “regularly, systematically[ and] routinely” (People v Kennedy, 68 NY2d 569, 579 [1986]), or that if kept in the regular course of business, they were “needed and relied on in the performance of the functions of the business” (People v Cratsley, 86 NY2d 81, 89 [1995]). There was no other basis for admissibility. However, the error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant‘s guilt, including the DNA match (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230 [1975]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

(End of first opinion) null

The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Luis Vargas, Appellant.

[952 NYS2d 41]

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York

Defendant‘s right of confrontation was not violated by testimony by the People‘s expert DNA analyst that made reference to data gathered by nontestifying technicians (see People v Brown, 13 NY3d 332 [2009]). Williams v Illinois (567 US —, —, 132 S Ct 2221, 2242-2244 [2012]) provides further support for the proposition that the DNA evidence in this case did not violate the Confrontation Clause.

The court erred in ruling that class sign-in sheets from the program defendant was enrolled in on the date of the crime were admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. The evidence did not establish that these records were kept “regularly, systematically[ and] routinely” (People v Kennedy, 68 NY2d 569, 579 [1986]), or that if kept in the regular course of business, they were “needed and relied on in the performance of the functions of the business” (People v Cratsley, 86 NY2d 81, 89 [1995]). There was no other basis for admissibility. However, the error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant‘s guilt, including the DNA match (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230 [1975]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

(End of first opinion) null

The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Luis Vargas, Appellant.

[952 NYS2d 41]

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York

Defendant‘s right of confrontation was not violated by testimony by the People‘s expert DNA analyst that made reference to data gathered by nontestifying technicians (see People v Brown, 13 NY3d 332 [2009]). Williams v Illinois (567 US —, —, 132 S Ct 2221, 2242-2244 [2012]) provides further support for the proposition that the DNA evidence in this case did not violate the Confrontation Clause.

The court erred in ruling that class sign-in sheets from the program defendant was enrolled in on the date of the crime were admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. The evidence did not establish that these records were kept “regularly, systematically[ and] routinely” (People v Kennedy, 68 NY2d 569, 579 [1986]), or that if kept in the regular course of business, they were “needed and relied on in the performance of the functions of the business” (People v Cratsley, 86 NY2d 81, 89 [1995]). There was no other basis for admissibility. However, the error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant‘s guilt, including the DNA match (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230 [1975]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

(End of first opinion) null

The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Luis Vargas, Appellant.

[952 NYS2d 41]

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York

Defendant‘s right of confrontation was not violated by testimony by the People‘s expert DNA analyst that made reference to data gathered by nontestifying technicians (see People v Brown, 13 NY3d 332 [2009]). Williams v Illinois (567 US —, —, 132 S Ct 2221, 2242-2244 [2012]) provides further support for the proposition that the DNA evidence in this case did not violate the Confrontation Clause.

The court erred in ruling that class sign-in sheets from the program defendant was enrolled in on the date of the crime were admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. The evidence did not establish that these records were kept “regularly, systematically[ and] routinely” (People v Kennedy, 68 NY2d 569, 579 [1986]), or that if kept in the regular course of business, they were “needed and relied on in the performance of the functions of the business” (People v Cratsley, 86 NY2d 81, 89 [1995]). There was no other basis for admissibility. However, the error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant‘s guilt, including the DNA match (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230 [1975]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

(End of first opinion) null

The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Luis Vargas, Appellant.

[952 NYS2d 41]

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York

Defendant‘s right of confrontation was not violated by testimony by the People‘s expert DNA analyst that made reference to data gathered by nontestifying technicians (see People v Brown, 13 NY3d 332 [2009]). Williams v Illinois (567 US —, —, 132 S Ct 2221, 2242-2244 [2012]) provides further support for the proposition that the DNA evidence in this case did not violate the Confrontation Clause.

The court erred in ruling that class sign-in sheets from the program defendant was enrolled in on the date of the crime were admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. The evidence did not establish that these records were kept “regularly, systematically[ and] routinely” (People v Kennedy, 68 NY2d 569, 579 [1986]), or that if kept in the regular course of business, they were “needed and relied on in the performance of the functions of the business” (People v Cratsley, 86 NY2d 81, 89 [1995]). There was no other basis for admissibility. However, the error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant‘s guilt, including the DNA match (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230 [1975]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

(End of first opinion) null

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v Luis VARGAS, Appellant.

[952 NYS2d 41]

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York

Defendant‘s right of confrontation was not violated by testimony by the People‘s expert DNA analyst that made reference to data gathered by nontestifying technicians (see People v Brown, 13 NY3d 332 [2009]). Williams v Illinois (567 US —, —, 132 S Ct 2221, 2242-2244 [2012]) provides further support for the proposition that the DNA evidence in this case did not violate the Confrontation Clause.

The court erred in ruling that class sign-in sheets from the program defendant was enrolled in on the date of the crime were admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. The evidence did not establish that these records were kept “regularly, systematically[ and] routinely” (People v Kennedy, 68 NY2d 569, 579 [1986]), or that if kept in the regular course of business, they were “needed and relied on in the performance of the functions of the business” (People v Cratsley, 86 NY2d 81, 89 [1995]). There was no other basis for admissibility. However, the error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant‘s guilt, including the DNA match (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230 [1975]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

(End of first opinion) null

The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Luis Vargas, Appellant.

[952 NYS2d 41]

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York

Defendant‘s right of confrontation was not violated by testimony by the People‘s expert DNA analyst that made reference to data gathered by nontestifying technicians (see People v Brown, 13 NY3d 332 [2009]). Williams v Illinois (567 US —, —, 132 S Ct 2221, 2242-2244 [2012]) provides further support for the proposition that the DNA evidence in this case did not violate the Confrontation Clause.

The court erred in ruling that class sign-in sheets from the program defendant was enrolled in on the date of the crime were admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. The evidence did not establish that these records were kept “regularly, systematically[ and] routinely” (People v Kennedy, 68 NY2d 569, 579 [1986]), or that if kept in the regular course of business, they were “needed and relied on in the performance of the functions of the business” (People v Cratsley, 86 NY2d 81, 89 [1995]). There was no other basis for admissibility. However, the error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant‘s guilt, including the DNA match (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230 [1975]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

(End of first opinion) null

The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Luis Vargas, Appellant.

[952 NYS2d 41]

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York

Defendant‘s right of confrontation was not violated by testimony by the People‘s expert DNA analyst that made reference to data gathered by nontestifying technicians (see People v Brown, 13 NY3d 332 [2009]). Williams v Illinois (567 US —, —, 132 S Ct 2221, 2242-2244 [2012]) provides further support for the proposition that the DNA evidence in this case did not violate the Confrontation Clause.

The court erred in ruling that class sign-in sheets from the program defendant was enrolled in on the date of the crime were admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. The evidence did not establish that these records were kept “regularly, systematically[ and] routinely” (People v Kennedy, 68 NY2d 569, 579 [1986]), or that if kept in the regular course of business, they were “needed and relied on in the performance of the functions of the business” (People v Cratsley, 86 NY2d 81, 89 [1995]). There was no other basis for admissibility. However, the error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant‘s guilt, including the DNA match (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230 [1975]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

(End of first opinion) null

The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Luis Vargas, Appellant.

[952 NYS2d 41]

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York

Defendant‘s right of confrontation was not violated by testimony by the People‘s expert DNA analyst that made reference to data gathered by nontestifying technicians (see People v Brown, 13 NY3d 332 [2009]). Williams v Illinois (567 US —, —, 132 S Ct 2221, 2242-2244 [2012]) provides further support for the proposition that the DNA evidence in this case did not violate the Confrontation Clause.

The court erred in ruling that class sign-in sheets from the program defendant was enrolled in on the date of the crime were admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. The evidence did not establish that these records were kept “regularly, systematically[ and] routinely” (People v Kennedy, 68 NY2d 569, 579 [1986]), or that if kept in the regular course of business, they were “needed and relied on in the performance of the functions of the business” (People v Cratsley, 86 NY2d 81, 89 [1995]). There was no other basis for admissibility. However, the error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant‘s guilt, including the DNA match (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230 [1975]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

(End of first opinion) null

The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Luis Vargas, Appellant.

[952 NYS2d 41]

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York

Defendant‘s right of confrontation was not violated by testimony by the People‘s expert DNA analyst that made reference to data gathered by nontestifying technicians (see People v Brown, 13 NY3d 332 [2009]). Williams v Illinois (567 US —, —, 132 S Ct 2221, 2242-2244 [2012]) provides further support for the proposition that the DNA evidence in this case did not violate the Confrontation Clause.

The court erred in ruling that class sign-in sheets from the program defendant was enrolled in on the date of the crime were admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. The evidence did not establish that these records were kept “regularly, systematically[ and] routinely” (People v Kennedy, 68 NY2d 569, 579 [1986]), or that if kept in the regular course of business, they were “needed and relied on in the performance of the functions of the business” (People v Cratsley, 86 NY2d 81, 89 [1995]). There was no other basis for admissibility. However, the error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant‘s guilt, including the DNA match (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230 [1975]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

(End of first opinion) null

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v Luis VARGAS, Appellant.

[952 NYS2d 41]

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York

Defendant‘s right of confrontation was not violated by testimony by the People‘s expert DNA analyst that made reference to data gathered by nontestifying technicians (see People v Brown, 13 NY3d 332 [2009]). Williams v Illinois (567 US —, —, 132 S Ct 2221, 2242-2244 [2012]) provides further support for the proposition that the DNA evidence in this case did not violate the Confrontation Clause.

The court erred in ruling that class sign-in sheets from the program defendant was enrolled in on the date of the crime were admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. The evidence did not establish that these records were kept “regularly, systematically[ and] routinely” (People v Kennedy, 68 NY2d 569, 579 [1986]), or that if kept in the regular course of business, they were “needed and relied on in the performance of the functions of the business” (People v Cratsley, 86 NY2d 81, 89 [1995]). There was no other basis for admissibility. However, the error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant‘s guilt, including the DNA match (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230 [1975]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

(End of first opinion) null

The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Luis Vargas, Appellant.

[952 NYS2d 41]

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York

Defendant‘s right of confrontation was not violated by testimony by the People‘s expert DNA analyst that made reference to data gathered by nontestifying technicians (see People v Brown, 13 NY3d 332 [2009]). Williams v Illinois (567 US —, —, 132 S Ct 2221, 2242-2244 [2012]) provides further support for the proposition that the DNA evidence in this case did not violate the Confrontation Clause.

The court erred in ruling that class sign-in sheets from the program defendant was enrolled in on the date of the crime were admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. The evidence did not establish that these records were kept “regularly, systematically[ and] routinely” (People v Kennedy, 68 NY2d 569, 579 [1986]), or that if kept in the regular course of business, they were “needed and relied on in the performance of the functions of the business” (People v Cratsley, 86 NY2d 81, 89 [1995]). There was no other basis for admissibility. However, the error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant‘s guilt, including the DNA match (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230 [1975]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

(End of first opinion) null

The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Luis Vargas, Appellant.

[952 NYS2d 41]

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York

Defendant‘s right of confrontation was not violated by testimony by the People‘s expert DNA analyst that made reference to data gathered by nontestifying technicians (see People v Brown, 13 NY3d 332 [2009]). Williams v Illinois (567 US —, —, 132 S Ct 2221, 2242-2244 [2012]) provides further support for the proposition that the DNA evidence in this case did not violate the Confrontation Clause.

The court erred in ruling that class sign-in sheets from the program defendant was enrolled in on the date of the crime were admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. The evidence did not establish that these records were kept “regularly, systematically[ and] routinely” (People v Kennedy, 68 NY2d 569, 579 [1986]), or that if kept in the regular course of business, they were “needed and relied on in the performance of the functions of the business” (People v Cratsley, 86 NY2d 81, 89 [1995]). There was no other basis for admissibility. However, the error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant‘s guilt, including the DNA match (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230 [1975]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

(End of first opinion) null

The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Luis Vargas, Appellant.

[952 NYS2d 41]

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York

Defendant‘s right of confrontation was not violated by testimony by the People‘s expert DNA analyst that made reference to data gathered by nontestifying technicians (see People v Brown, 13 NY3d 332 [2009]). Williams v Illinois (567 US —, —, 132 S Ct 2221, 2242-2244 [2012]) provides further support for the proposition that the DNA evidence in this case did not violate the Confrontation Clause.

The court erred in ruling that class sign-in sheets from the program defendant was enrolled in on the date of the crime were admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. The evidence did not establish that these records were kept “regularly, systematically[ and] routinely” (People v Kennedy, 68 NY2d 569, 579 [1986]), or that if kept in the regular course of business, they were “needed and relied on in the performance of the functions of the business” (People v Cratsley, 86 NY2d 81, 89 [1995]). There was no other basis for admissibility. However, the error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant‘s guilt, including the DNA match (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230 [1975]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

(End of first opinion) null

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v Luis VARGAS, Appellant.

[952 NYS2d 41]

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York

Defendant‘s right of confrontation was not violated by testimony by the People‘s expert DNA analyst that made reference to data gathered by nontestifying technicians (see People v Brown, 13 NY3d 332 [2009]). Williams v Illinois (567 US —, —, 132 S Ct 2221, 2242-2244 [2012]) provides further support for the proposition that the DNA evidence in this case did not violate the Confrontation Clause.

The court erred in ruling that class sign-in sheets from the program defendant was enrolled in on the date of the crime were admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. The evidence did not establish that these records were kept “regularly, systematically[ and] routinely” (People v Kennedy, 68 NY2d 569, 579 [1986]), or that if kept in the regular course of business, they were “needed and relied on in the performance of the functions of the business” (People v Cratsley, 86 NY2d 81, 89 [1995]). There was no other basis for admissibility. However, the error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant‘s guilt, including the DNA match (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230 [1975]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

(End of first opinion) null

The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Luis Vargas, Appellant.

[952 NYS2d 41]

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York

Defendant‘s right of confrontation was not violated by testimony by the People‘s expert DNA analyst that made reference to data gathered by nontestifying technicians (see People v Brown, 13 NY3d 332 [2009]). Williams v Illinois (567 US —, —, 132 S Ct 2221, 2242-2244 [2012]) provides further support for the proposition that the DNA evidence in this case did not violate the Confrontation Clause.

The court erred in ruling that class sign-in sheets from the program defendant was enrolled in on the date of the crime were admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. The evidence did not establish that these records were kept “regularly, systematically[ and] routinely” (People v Kennedy, 68 NY2d 569, 579 [1986]), or that if kept in the regular course of business, they were “needed and relied on in the performance of the functions of the business” (People v Cratsley, 86 NY2d 81, 89 [1995]). There was no other basis for admissibility. However, the error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant‘s guilt, including the DNA match (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230 [1975]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

(End of first opinion) null

The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Luis Vargas, Appellant.

[952 NYS2d 41]

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York

Defendant‘s right of confrontation was not violated by testimony by the People‘s expert DNA analyst that made reference to data gathered by nontestifying technicians (see People v Brown, 13 NY3d 332 [2009]). Williams v Illinois (567 US —, —, 132 S Ct 2221, 2242-2244 [2012]) provides further support for the proposition that the DNA evidence in this case did not violate the Confrontation Clause.

The court erred in ruling that class sign-in sheets from the program defendant was enrolled in on the date of the crime were admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. The evidence did not establish that these records were kept “regularly, systematically[ and] routinely” (People v Kennedy, 68 NY2d 569, 579 [1986]), or that if kept in the regular course of business, they were “needed and relied on in the performance of the functions of the business” (People v Cratsley, 86 NY2d 81, 89 [1995]). There was no other basis for admissibility. However, the error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant‘s guilt, including the DNA match (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230 [1975]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

(End of first opinion) null

The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Luis Vargas, Appellant.

[952 NYS2d 41]

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York

Defendant‘s right of confrontation was not violated by testimony by the People‘s expert DNA analyst that made reference to data gathered by nontestifying technicians (see People v Brown, 13 NY3d 332 [2009]). Williams v Illinois (567 US —, —, 132 S Ct 2221, 2242-2244 [2012]) provides further support for the proposition that the DNA evidence in this case did not violate the Confrontation Clause.

The court erred in ruling that class sign-in sheets from the program defendant was enrolled in on the date of the crime were admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. The evidence did not establish that these records were kept “regularly, systematically[ and] routinely” (People v Kennedy, 68 NY2d 569, 579 [1986]), or that if kept in the regular course of business, they were “needed and relied on in the performance of the functions of the business” (People v Cratsley, 86 NY2d 81, 89 [1995]). There was no other basis for admissibility. However, the error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant‘s guilt, including the DNA match (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230 [1975]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

(End of first opinion) null

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v Luis VARGAS, Appellant.

[952 NYS2d 41]

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York

Defendant‘s right of confrontation was not violated by testimony by the People‘s expert DNA analyst that made reference to data gathered by nontestifying technicians (see People v Brown, 13 NY3d 332 [2009]). Williams v Illinois (567 US —, —, 132 S Ct 2221, 2242-2244 [2012]) provides further support for the proposition that the DNA evidence in this case did not violate the Confrontation Clause.

The court erred in ruling that class sign-in sheets from the program defendant was enrolled in on the date of the crime were admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. The evidence did not establish that these records were kept “regularly, systematically[ and] routinely” (People v Kennedy, 68 NY2d 569, 579 [1986]), or that if kept in the regular course of business, they were “needed and relied on in the performance of the functions of the business” (People v Cratsley, 86 NY2d 81, 89 [1995]). There was no other basis for admissibility. However, the error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant‘s guilt, including the DNA match (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230 [1975]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

(End of first opinion) null

The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Luis Vargas, Appellant.

[952 NYS2d 41]

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York

Defendant‘s right of confrontation was not violated by testimony by the People‘s expert DNA analyst that made reference to data gathered by nontestifying technicians (see People v Brown, 13 NY3d 332 [2009]). Williams v Illinois (567 US —, —, 132 S Ct 2221, 2242-2244 [2012]) provides further support for the proposition that the DNA evidence in this case did not violate the Confrontation Clause.

The court erred in ruling that class sign-in sheets from the program defendant was enrolled in on the date of the crime were admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. The evidence did not establish that these records were kept “regularly, systematically[ and] routinely” (People v Kennedy, 68 NY2d 569, 579 [1986]), or that if kept in the regular course of business, they were “needed and relied on in the performance of the functions of the business” (People v Cratsley, 86 NY2d 81, 89 [1995]). There was no other basis for admissibility. However, the error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant‘s guilt, including the DNA match (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230 [1975]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

(End of first opinion) null

The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Luis Vargas, Appellant.

[952 NYS2d 41]

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York

Defendant‘s right of confrontation was not violated by testimony by the People‘s expert DNA analyst that made reference to data gathered by nontestifying technicians (see People v Brown, 13 NY3d 332 [2009]). Williams v Illinois (567 US —, —, 132 S Ct 2221, 2242-2244 [2012]) provides further support for the proposition that the DNA evidence in this case did not violate the Confrontation Clause.

The court erred in ruling that class sign-in sheets from the program defendant was enrolled in on the date of the crime were admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. The evidence did not establish that these records were kept “regularly, systematically[ and] routinely” (People v Kennedy, 68 NY2d 569, 579 [1986]), or that if kept in the regular course of business, they were “needed and relied on in the performance of the functions of the business” (