People v. Callistro

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Callistro

259 A.D.2d 625, 687 N.Y.S.2d 389, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2435

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

DecidedMarch 15, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 259 A.D.2d 625 (People v. Callistro) 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. Callistro, 259 A.D.2d 625, 687 N.Y.S.2d 389, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2435 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (J. Goldberg, J.), rendered October 3, 1996, convicting him of attempted assault in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The trial court’s Sandoval ruling did not constitute an improvident exercise of discretion (see, People v Mattiace, 77 NY2d 269, 275-276; People v Pavao, 59 NY2d 282, 292). The mere fact that a defendant had committed crimes similar to the one charged did not automatically warrant precluding the prosecutor from using evidence of such crimes for impeachment purposes (see, People v Mattiace, supra; People v Pavao, supra; People v McClam, 225 AD2d 799).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either without [626]*626merit or do not warrant reversal. S. Miller, J. P., Florio, Mc-Ginity and Luciano, 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, Richmond County (J. Goldberg, J.), rendered October 3, 1996, convicting him of attempted assault in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The trial court’s Sandoval ruling did not constitute an improvident exercise of discretion (see, People v Mattiace, 77 NY2d 269, 275-276; People v Pavao, 59 NY2d 282, 292). The mere fact that a defendant had committed crimes similar to the one charged did not automatically warrant precluding the prosecutor from using evidence of such crimes for impeachment purposes (see, People v Mattiace, supra; People v Pavao, supra; People v McClam, 225 AD2d 799).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either without [626]*626merit or do not warrant reversal. S. Miller, J. P., Florio, Mc-Ginity and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

259 A.D.2d 625, 687 N.Y.S.2d 389, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2435, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-callistro-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack