People v. Berman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Berman

93 A.D.2d 865, 461 N.Y.S.2d 373, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17735

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

DecidedApril 18, 1983

StatusPublished

This text of 93 A.D.2d 865 (People v. Berman) 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. Berman, 93 A.D.2d 865, 461 N.Y.S.2d 373, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17735 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Savarese, J.), rendered September 2, 1981, convicting him of bribe receiving in the second degree and offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial ordered. As a result of Criminal Term’s erroneous ruling during the cross-examination of defendant’s character witnesses, the jury was informed that defendant had been discharged from his position with the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance on the basis of the precise claims at issue in the trial. Despite Criminal Term’s subsequent cautionary instructions, the effect of that ruling was to deny defendant his right to a fair trial (see People v Rosenfeld, 11 NY2d 290). Evidence of a prior administrative determination, which is often based upon a lesser standard of proof, is inherently prejudicial because of the persistent danger that jurors will defer to the administrative determination without properly considering the evidence presented (see People v Rosenfeld, supra; People v Cioffi, 1 NY2d 70; People v Malkin, 250 NY 185). Titone, J. P., Lazer, Weinstein and Boyers, JJ., concur.

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

— Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Savarese, J.), rendered September 2, 1981, convicting him of bribe receiving in the second degree and offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial ordered. As a result of Criminal Term’s erroneous ruling during the cross-examination of defendant’s character witnesses, the jury was informed that defendant had been discharged from his position with the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance on the basis of the precise claims at issue in the trial. Despite Criminal Term’s subsequent cautionary instructions, the effect of that ruling was to deny defendant his right to a fair trial (see People v Rosenfeld, 11 NY2d 290). Evidence of a prior administrative determination, which is often based upon a lesser standard of proof, is inherently prejudicial because of the persistent danger that jurors will defer to the administrative determination without properly considering the evidence presented (see People v Rosenfeld, supra; People v Cioffi, 1 NY2d 70; People v Malkin, 250 NY 185). Titone, J. P., Lazer, Weinstein and Boyers, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

93 A.D.2d 865, 461 N.Y.S.2d 373, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17735, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-berman-nyappdiv-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack