People v. Adeyemi

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Adeyemi

32 A.D.3d 755, 820 N.Y.S.2d 798

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedSeptember 21, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by11 cases

This text of 32 A.D.3d 755 (People v. Adeyemi) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Adeyemi, 32 A.D.3d 755, 820 N.Y.S.2d 798 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (William A. Wetzel, J), rendered July 25, 2005, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of assault in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of two years, unanimously affirmed. The matter is remitted to Supreme Court, New York County, for further proceedings pursuant to CEL 460.50 (5).

[756]*756The People sufficiently complied with CPL 240.45 (1) (b) by turning over to defendant a list of a witness’s convictions including the Penal Law sections violated and the dates of conviction (see People v Graham, 289 AD2d 417 [2001], lv denied 97 NY2d 754 [2002]; People v Moore, 244 AD2d 776 [1997], lv denied 91 NY2d 975 [1998]). The witness was thoroughly impeached by means of these convictions and defendant was not prejudiced by the absence of docket numbers (see People v Osborne, 91 NY2d 827 [1997]; People v Arac, 297 AD2d 560 [2002], lv denied 99 NY2d 580 [2003]; People v Bazemore, 272 AD2d 64 [2000], lv denied 95 NY2d 888 [2000]). The court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant’s request to recall the witness for further cross-examination about the underlying facts of one of his prior convictions based on newly obtained information, since there had already been a sufficient opportunity to cross-examine the witness on this subject (see People v Stevenson, 281 AD2d 323 [2001]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Tom, J.P., Andrias, Friedman, Marlow and Gonzalez, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (William A. Wetzel, J), rendered July 25, 2005, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of assault in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of two years, unanimously affirmed. The matter is remitted to Supreme Court, New York County, for further proceedings pursuant to CEL 460.50 (5).

[756]*756The People sufficiently complied with CPL 240.45 (1) (b) by turning over to defendant a list of a witness’s convictions including the Penal Law sections violated and the dates of conviction (see People v Graham, 289 AD2d 417 [2001], lv denied 97 NY2d 754 [2002]; People v Moore, 244 AD2d 776 [1997], lv denied 91 NY2d 975 [1998]). The witness was thoroughly impeached by means of these convictions and defendant was not prejudiced by the absence of docket numbers (see People v Osborne, 91 NY2d 827 [1997]; People v Arac, 297 AD2d 560 [2002], lv denied 99 NY2d 580 [2003]; People v Bazemore, 272 AD2d 64 [2000], lv denied 95 NY2d 888 [2000]). The court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant’s request to recall the witness for further cross-examination about the underlying facts of one of his prior convictions based on newly obtained information, since there had already been a sufficient opportunity to cross-examine the witness on this subject (see People v Stevenson, 281 AD2d 323 [2001]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Tom, J.P., Andrias, Friedman, Marlow and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 A.D.3d 755, 820 N.Y.S.2d 798, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-adeyemi-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack