H

Evidence of a consistent practice or method followed by a person has routinely been allowed (e.g., Zucker v Whitridge, 205 NY 50, 58-66 [carefulness], and Hartley v Szadkowski, 32 AD2d 550 [carelessness], with People v Bombard, 5 AD2d 923, cert den 358 U.S. 849 [prosecutor's practice of insisting defendant be advised of right to counsel]).

One who has demonstrated a consistent response under given circumstances is more likely to repeat that response when the circumstances arise again, evidence of habit has, since the days of the common-law reports, generally been admissible to prove conformity on specified occasions (e.g., Miller v ...