Opinion
2012-11-20
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Randy DICKS, Defendant–Appellant.
Law Offices of Douglas G. Rankin, P.C., Brooklyn (Douglas G. Rankin of counsel), for appellant. Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Britta Gilmore of counsel), for respondent.
Law Offices of Douglas G. Rankin, P.C., Brooklyn (Douglas G. Rankin of counsel), for appellant. Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Britta Gilmore of counsel), for respondent.
TOM, J.P., ANDRIAS, SAXE, ACOSTA, FREEDMAN, JJ.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Roger S. Hayes, J.), rendered April 29, 2011, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of bribery in the third degree, and sentencing him to a term of six months of intermittent imprisonment to be served on weekends, unanimously affirmed.
Recordings of incriminating conversations between defendant and other persons were properly authenticated by participants' testimony that the recordings were accurate, complete and unaltered ( see People v. Ely, 68 N.Y.2d 520, 527, 510 N.Y.S.2d 532, 503 N.E.2d 88 [1986];People v. Agudelo, 96 A.D.3d 611, 947 N.Y.S.2d 96 [1st Dept. 2012] ). Defendant's identity as a participant in the conversations was sufficiently established by the testimony of another participant, as well as the surrounding circumstances, including several face-to-face meetings that followed up on the recorded conversations. No chain-of-custody evidence was required ( see People v. Ely, 68 N.Y.2d at 528, 510 N.Y.S.2d 532, 503 N.E.2d 88), and since the contents of the tapes were not in dispute, the best evidence rule did not apply ( see Schozer v. William Penn Life Ins. Co., 84 N.Y.2d 639, 643, 620 N.Y.S.2d 797, 644 N.E.2d 1353 [1984] ).