People v. Arnold

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Arnold

284 A.D.2d 143, 725 N.Y.S.2d 203, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5677

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

DecidedJune 7, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 284 A.D.2d 143 (People v. Arnold) 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. Arnold, 284 A.D.2d 143, 725 N.Y.S.2d 203, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5677 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Nicholas Figueroa, J.), rendered February 5, 1999, convicting defendant, after a non-jury trial, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 4 to 8 years and 4 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

In this bench trial, the court did not err in directing that a police officer be called as the court’s witness for the purpose of [144]*144clarifying testimony and satisfying itself as to the truth in its role as trier of fact (see, People v Kovzelove, 242 AD2d 477, lv denied 91 NY2d 875). Defendant’s remaining contentions concerning the court’s conduct of the trial are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would find that the court’s questioning of witnesses was not excessive and served to clarify issues and develop factual information relevant to the case (see People v Moulton, 43 NY2d 944, 945). The risk of prejudice was minimal or nonexistent since there was no jury (see, People v Acosta, 241 AD2d 385, lv denied 92 NY2d 846; People v Mays, 197 AD2d 361). Concur — Tom, J. P., Andrias, Ellerin, Wallach and Friedman, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Nicholas Figueroa, J.), rendered February 5, 1999, convicting defendant, after a non-jury trial, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 4 to 8 years and 4 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

In this bench trial, the court did not err in directing that a police officer be called as the court’s witness for the purpose of [144]*144clarifying testimony and satisfying itself as to the truth in its role as trier of fact (see, People v Kovzelove, 242 AD2d 477, lv denied 91 NY2d 875). Defendant’s remaining contentions concerning the court’s conduct of the trial are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would find that the court’s questioning of witnesses was not excessive and served to clarify issues and develop factual information relevant to the case (see People v Moulton, 43 NY2d 944, 945). The risk of prejudice was minimal or nonexistent since there was no jury (see, People v Acosta, 241 AD2d 385, lv denied 92 NY2d 846; People v Mays, 197 AD2d 361). Concur — Tom, J. P., Andrias, Ellerin, Wallach and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

284 A.D.2d 143, 725 N.Y.S.2d 203, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5677, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-arnold-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack