Defendants seek to "[e]xclud[e] Notices of Violation issued to the defendants and any
testimony thereof or mention of the same" (see Motion In Limine to Preclude Evidence
dated September 14, 2012, ¶ 12.) Defendants fail to provide a copy of any Notice of
Violation that they seek precluded, but rather provide copies of records of two complaints, dated
respectively, June 14, 2007 and March 11, 2008, made by Plaintiff to the New York City
Department of Housing Preservation and Development, Division of Code Enforcement
("DHPD").
To the extent, however, that Plaintiff should seek to introduce the complaints into evidence
to prove the existence of the conditions described therein, including mold, the Court would rule
them inadmissible as hearsay. "It is a general rule that the evidence of a witness can never be
corroborated or confirmed by proof that the witness stated the same facts testified to in court on
some occasion when not under oath." (People v O'Sullivan, 104 NY 481, 486 [1887]; see also People v Rosario, 17 NY3d
501, 511-12 [2011]; People v Clarke, 173 AD2d 550, 551 [2d Dept 1991] [civilian
complaint] ["a party may not bolster the testimony of his or her witness by showing that they
have made prior consistent statements"].)
In opposition, Plaintiff submits a copy of a Violation Summary Report, purportedly coming
from DHPD, which shows that 11 Notices of Violation were issued at times from June 28, 2007
until November 25, 2008 with respect to described conditions in Plaintiff's apartment. The
Violation Summary Report is not rendered admissible as evidence, nor are the underlying
Notices of Violation provided. The Court notes that Plaintiff proposes to call as witnesses at trial