People v. Arena
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Hancock, Jr., J.
The question presented is whether the authenticating testimony of a participant in a conversation can, without additional proof, establish a sufficient foundation for the admission of a tape of the conversation. We hold that under the circumstances in this case such testimony is sufficient.
A jury has convicted defendant, Leo Arena, of attempted grand larceny by extortion and attempted coercion in connection with an effort to "shake down” Daniel Hartnett, the proprietor of a massage parlor. The main item of evidence against the defendant was a tape recording…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- People v. ConnellyNew York Court of Appeals · 1974
- United States v. McKeeverDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1958
- People v. LubowNew York Court of Appeals · 1971
- Amaro v. City of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1976
- People v. FeldNew York Court of Appeals · 1953
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- People v. ElyNew York Court of Appeals · 1986
- People v. GiglioAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1980
- People v. RodriguezAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1980
- In Re Hunter Studios, Inc.United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. New York · 1994