People v. Anonymous

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Anonymous

754 N.E.2d 193, 96 N.Y.2d 839, 729 N.Y.S.2d 434, 2001 N.Y. LEXIS 1406

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 5, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by15 cases

This text of 754 N.E.2d 193 (People v. Anonymous) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Anonymous, 754 N.E.2d 193, 96 N.Y.2d 839, 729 N.Y.S.2d 434, 2001 N.Y. LEXIS 1406 (N.Y. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

*840 OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed. The motivation of defendant’s main alibi witness to fabricate testimony was not collateral and, therefore, Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in permitting cross-examination of the witness or in admitting rebuttal testimony refuting the alibi witness’s claims. We note the point raised by defendant as to the prosecutor’s improper comments during the summation, but are unable to reach it. We do not condone the summation and base our affirmance solely on defendant’s failure to preserve the issue. Defendant’s remaining argument regarding the court’s charge is likewise unpreserved (People v Thomas, 50 NY2d 467, 471-472).

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Smith, Levine, Ciparick, Wesley, Rosenblatt and Graffeo concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed in a memorandum.

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

*840 OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed. The motivation of defendant’s main alibi witness to fabricate testimony was not collateral and, therefore, Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in permitting cross-examination of the witness or in admitting rebuttal testimony refuting the alibi witness’s claims. We note the point raised by defendant as to the prosecutor’s improper comments during the summation, but are unable to reach it. We do not condone the summation and base our affirmance solely on defendant’s failure to preserve the issue. Defendant’s remaining argument regarding the court’s charge is likewise unpreserved (People v Thomas, 50 NY2d 467, 471-472).

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Smith, Levine, Ciparick, Wesley, Rosenblatt and Graffeo concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

754 N.E.2d 193, 96 N.Y.2d 839, 729 N.Y.S.2d 434, 2001 N.Y. LEXIS 1406, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-anonymous-ny-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack