Judicial Notice of Internet Evidence — Google Maps and Other Internet Mapping Tools

Carriero v. Colbert, 2014 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 5045 (Sup.Ct. Tompkins Cnty. Nov. 21, 2014):

In opposition to plaintiff's motion, defendant avers that the straight-line, or radial, distance between the street addresses of the two residences is 162.64 miles (see Affirmation of Edward E. Kopko dated September 18, 2014, ¶ 10). Plaintiff does not contradict defendant's proof regarding the radial distance between the two residences, but argues that the Stipulation requires that the 200 mile distance be measured by the driving distance. Although neither party provided proof of the driving distance between the two residences, the court takes judicial notice that it exceeds 200 miles.2 Inasmuch as there is no dispute about the radial or driving distances between defendant's  [**2]  residences in Nyack and Ithaca, resolution of plaintiff's motion turns on the interpretation [*4]  to be given to the measurement of distance specified in the Stipulation.

2   The distance and driving time were calculated using Google Maps (www.google.com/maps, last accessed November 17, 2014) as 213 miles and 3 hours and 34 minutes. "Courts commonly use internet mapping tools to take judicial notice of distance and geography" (Rindfleisch v Gentiva Health Sys., Inc., 752 F Supp 2d 246, 259 n 13 [EDNY 2010]; accord Brisco v Ercole, 565 F3d 80, 83 n 2 [2d Cir 2009], cert denied 558 U.S. 1063, 130 S. Ct. 739, 175 L. Ed. 2d 542 [2009]; Ceglia v Zuckerberg, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45500, 2013 WL 1208558 *22 n 25 [WDNY 2013]; Tutor Time Learning Ctrs, LLC v KOG Indus., Inc., 2012 WL 5497943 *5 n 4 [EDNY 2012]; Maynard v Harrah's Entertainment, Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45888, 2010 WL 1930263 *5 n 6 [EDNY 2010]; Bisignano v Korff, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12529, 2001 WL 1772172 *4 n 1 [SDNY 2001]; see also Connor v City of New York, 29 Misc 3d 1208[A], 958 N.Y.S.2d 306, 2010 NY Slip Op 51757[U]; Dynamic Med. Imaging, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 29 Misc 3d 278, 279 - 280, 905 N.Y.S.2d 880 n 1[2010]; U.S. v Sessa, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7090, 2011 WL 256330 *25 n 12 [EDNY 2011], affd 711 F3d 316 [2013], cert denied     U.S.    , 134 S Ct 353, 187 L. Ed. 2d 264 [2013], reh denied     U.S.    , 134 S Ct 734, 187 L. Ed. 2d 589 [2013]).

 

Share this article:

Share on facebook
Facebook
Share on twitter
Twitter
Share on linkedin
LinkedIn
Share on email
Email

Recent Posts

Archives