People v. Agostini

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Agostini

239 A.D.2d 426, 657 N.Y.S.2d 749, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5042

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

DecidedMay 12, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 239 A.D.2d 426 (People v. Agostini) 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. Agostini, 239 A.D.2d 426, 657 N.Y.S.2d 749, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5042 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Goldstein, J.), rendered November 15, 1993, convicting him of robbery in the first degree and assault in the second degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The trial court properly allowed an eyewitness to testify that he had recognized the defendant from a previous incident wherein the defendant had robbed him. The witness’s testimony established his ability to identify the defendant when he observed him in the course of committing the present robbery. Therefore, the prior uncharged crime was admissible to prove the identity of the defendant (see, People v Wilson, 225 AD2d 642; People v Johnson, 216 AD2d 583; People v Jamerson, 119 AD2d 588). Moreover, any prejudice to the defendant was obviated by the court’s limiting instruction during and after the witness’s testimony, in addition to the court’s instructions in the jury charge (see, People v Allweiss, 48 NY2d 40, 49). Miller, J. P., Altman, Friedmann and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Goldstein, J.), rendered November 15, 1993, convicting him of robbery in the first degree and assault in the second degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The trial court properly allowed an eyewitness to testify that he had recognized the defendant from a previous incident wherein the defendant had robbed him. The witness’s testimony established his ability to identify the defendant when he observed him in the course of committing the present robbery. Therefore, the prior uncharged crime was admissible to prove the identity of the defendant (see, People v Wilson, 225 AD2d 642; People v Johnson, 216 AD2d 583; People v Jamerson, 119 AD2d 588). Moreover, any prejudice to the defendant was obviated by the court’s limiting instruction during and after the witness’s testimony, in addition to the court’s instructions in the jury charge (see, People v Allweiss, 48 NY2d 40, 49). Miller, J. P., Altman, Friedmann and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

239 A.D.2d 426, 657 N.Y.S.2d 749, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5042, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-agostini-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack