april 15, 2008 - Criminal Law Library Blog

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Lippman, P.J., Tom, Williams, Acosta, JJ. 3404 The People of the State of New York, Ind. 3515/05 Respondent, -against- Shane Hyatt, Defendant-Appellant. _________________________ Richard M. Greenberg, Office of the Appellate Defender, New York (Sara Gurwitch of counsel), and Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, New York (Jason Lichter of counsel), for appellant. Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney, New York (Lucy Jane Lang of counsel), for respondent. _________________________ Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Bart Stone, J.), rendered March 28, 2006, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of attempted assault in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 2 to 4 years, unanimously affirmed. The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the jury’s determinations concerning credibility. The court properly permitted brief and limited testimony from a Department of Correction investigator concerning the events leading up to defendant’s arrest (see e.g. People v Guerrero, 22 AD3d 266 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 882 [2005]). The testimony was based on the investigator’s personal knowledge, and it did not contain any hearsay, express or implied. Defendant’s 36
argument that this testimony invaded the fact-finding function of the jury, particularly by referring to the incident as an “assault,” is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find it without merit. By failing to object, by failing to make specific objections, or by failing to request further relief after curative actions were taken by the court, defendant failed to preserve his present challenges to testimony that allegedly suggested he had committed uncharged crimes or bad acts while incarcerated, and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we also reject them on the merits. The court’s curative actions were sufficient to prevent any undue prejudice. The record does not establish that defendant’s sentence was based on any improper criteria, and we perceive no basis for reducing the sentence or directing that it be served concurrently with an unrelated sentence. THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT. ENTERED: APRIL 15, 2008 _______________________ CLERK 37
Page 1 and 2: SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION F
Page 3 and 4: Lippman, P.J., Tom, Williams, Acost
Page 5 and 6: Danann Realty Corp. v Harris, 5 NY2
Page 7 and 8: Circle Rubbish launched “a force
Page 9 and 10: classes, and scheduling visits with
Page 13 and 14: was cut too deep. Defendants’ the
Page 21 and 22: witnesses and collective tailoring
Page 23 and 24: stipulated to the grounds, and the
Page 29 and 30: Mullaney v Wilbur, 421 US 684 [1975
Page 33 and 34: liability claims “share few, if a
Page 35: ecords of drug transactions and def
Page 39 and 40: in the 12 hours prior to plaintiff
Page 41 and 42: individual as the sole tenant in th
Page 43 and 44: opposed the motion, and pending the
Page 45 and 46: that defendant’s vehicle was regi
Page 47 and 48: arrests respectively. In fact, one
Page 49 and 50: inmate-victim who vaguely claimed t
Page 51 and 52: CATTERSON, J. (dissenting) Because
Page 53 and 54: person that’s in the cell closest
Page 55 and 56: evidence that anyone had intimidate
Page 57 and 58: him. See People v. Harte, 29 A.D.3d
Page 59 and 60: summary judgment on his Labor Law
Page 61 and 62: aise a triable issue as to construc
Page 63 and 64: specific substance of the conversat
Page 65 and 66: Gonzalez, J.P., Williams, Catterson
Page 67 and 68: Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Friedman
Page 69 and 70: interest of justice. As an alternat
Page 77 and 78: leave to amend the complaint to ass
Page 79 and 80: in the first degree. After being de
Page 83 and 84: decline to review it in the interes
Page 85 and 86: panelist understood that he needed
Page 87 and 88:
Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Friedman
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
to be compensated for its services
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Lippman, P.J., Saxe, Nardelli, Will
Page 101 and 102:
Lippman, P.J., Tom, Mazzarelli, And
Page 103 and 104:
Tom, J.P., Andrias, Friedman, Gonza
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Gonzalez, J.P., Nardelli, Buckley,
Page 109:
The Following Orders Were Entered A
show all

april 15, 2008 - Criminal Law Library Blog

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?