Question 1: Under the New York CPLR, which of the following is NOT a recognized exception to the hearsay rule?

• Dying declaration
• Business records
• Present sense impression
• Character evidence of victim (Correct answer)

Correct answer: Character evidence of victim

Character evidence of a victim is not a hearsay exception; dying declarations, business records, and present sense impressions are all recognized hearsay exceptions.

Question 2: In a New York civil case, a party seeks to introduce a hospital record containing a physician's opinion about the cause of an injury. Under CPLR 4518, this record is:

• Inadmissible because it contains opinion testimony
• Admissible as a business record if made in the regular course of business (Correct answer)
• Admissible only if the physician testifies live
• Inadmissible because medical records are privileged

Correct answer: Admissible as a business record if made in the regular course of business

Under CPLR 4518, business records including hospital records are admissible if made in the regular course of business, even if they contain opinions.

Question 3: A witness in a New York trial states she cannot recall a prior statement she made. The attorney shows her the written statement to refresh her recollection. After reviewing it, she still cannot recall. The attorney may:

• Read the statement into evidence as past recollection recorded (Correct answer)
• Admit the document itself as substantive evidence
• Ask the witness leading questions about the statement
• Compel the witness to adopt the statement as her testimony

Correct answer: Read the statement into evidence as past recollection recorded

When a witness's memory cannot be refreshed, the prior statement may be read into evidence as past recollection recorded if the foundational requirements are met.

Question 4: Under New York law, the attorney-client privilege is held by:

• The attorney
• The client (Correct answer)
• Both the attorney and client jointly
• The court

Correct answer: The client

The attorney-client privilege belongs to the client, who alone may waive it, though the attorney has a duty to assert it on the client's behalf.

Question 5: In New York, a prior inconsistent statement of a witness is admissible for which purpose?

• As substantive evidence of the facts asserted only if the witness admits making it
• Solely to impeach the witness's credibility (Correct answer)
• As both substantive evidence and impeachment if made under oath at a prior proceeding (the federal FRE 801(d)(1)(A) rule, not New York's)
• Only if the statement was written and signed

Correct answer: Solely to impeach the witness's credibility

In New York, a witness's prior inconsistent statement is admissible only to impeach credibility, not as substantive proof of the facts asserted, even if it was made under oath (NY Guide to Evidence Rule 6.15; CPLR 4514; CPL 60.35). New York did not adopt FRE 801(d)(1)(A).

Unlike Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1)(A), New York does not treat a prior inconsistent statement as substantive evidence, whether or not it was sworn. In civil cases CPLR 4514 allows impeachment with a prior inconsistent statement made in a writing signed by the witness or under oath. In criminal cases CPL 60.35 lets a party impeach its own witness with such a statement only when the testimony affirmatively damages that party's case, and the jury must be told the statement is not evidence-in-chief. Choice A is wrong because admitting the statement does not make it substantive. Choice C states the federal rule. Choice D is too narrow, since sworn oral statements also qualify.

Question 6: Under New York's rape shield law, evidence of a victim's prior sexual conduct is generally:

• Admissible to show consent
• Inadmissible, with limited statutory exceptions (Correct answer)
• Admissible if the defendant testifies
• Admissible to attack the victim's credibility

Correct answer: Inadmissible, with limited statutory exceptions

New York's rape shield law bars evidence of a victim's prior sexual conduct except in narrow statutory exceptions, such as prior sexual conduct with the defendant.

Question 7: A party in a New York civil case wants to introduce a public record showing the official cause of a bridge collapse. Under CPLR 4520, this record is:

• Inadmissible because it is hearsay
• Admissible as a public record exception to hearsay (Correct answer)
• Admissible only if the official who prepared it testifies
• Inadmissible unless certified by the Secretary of State

Correct answer: Admissible as a public record exception to hearsay

Under CPLR 4520, official public records are admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule without requiring the preparer to testify.