People v. Ambrose

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Ambrose

272 A.D.2d 951, 707 N.Y.S.2d 921, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8135

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

DecidedMay 10, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 272 A.D.2d 951 (People v. Ambrose) 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. Ambrose, 272 A.D.2d 951, 707 N.Y.S.2d 921, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8135 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Contrary to defendant’s contention, the record supports County Court’s determination [952]*952in this bench trial that the complainant’s deposition was inadvertently lost and that, despite efforts to locate the deposition, it was not available for use at trial (see, People v Walker, 258 AD2d 964, lv denied 93 NY2d 981). The court’s decision to sanction the People therefor by drawing an adverse inference with respect to complainant’s trial testimony was a proper exercise of the court’s discretion (see generally, People v Banch, 80 NY2d 610, 616; People v Martinez, 71 NY2d 937, 940). (Appeal from Judgment of Monroe County Court, Smith, J.— Sexual Abuse, 1st Degree.) Present — Pine, J. P., Hayes, Scudder and Kehoe, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Contrary to defendant’s contention, the record supports County Court’s determination [952]*952in this bench trial that the complainant’s deposition was inadvertently lost and that, despite efforts to locate the deposition, it was not available for use at trial (see, People v Walker, 258 AD2d 964, lv denied 93 NY2d 981). The court’s decision to sanction the People therefor by drawing an adverse inference with respect to complainant’s trial testimony was a proper exercise of the court’s discretion (see generally, People v Banch, 80 NY2d 610, 616; People v Martinez, 71 NY2d 937, 940). (Appeal from Judgment of Monroe County Court, Smith, J.— Sexual Abuse, 1st Degree.) Present — Pine, J. P., Hayes, Scudder and Kehoe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

272 A.D.2d 951, 707 N.Y.S.2d 921, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8135, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-ambrose-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack