People v. Catalano

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Catalano

124 A.D.2d 304, 507 N.Y.S.2d 1020, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 61335

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

DecidedOctober 16, 1986

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 124 A.D.2d 304 (People v. Catalano) 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. Catalano, 124 A.D.2d 304, 507 N.Y.S.2d 1020, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 61335 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

In People v Robideau (121 AD2d 769), we reversed the conviction of defendant’s codefendant on the ground that County Court improperly limited the cross-examination of a prosecution witness. We stated there that People v Sandoval (34 NY2d 371) may not be used to limit the cross-examination of a nondefendant witness, and that such a witness may be cross-examined with regard to any criminal, vicious or disgraceful acts having a bearing on his credibility. As defendant in this case was tried jointly with his codefendant, our determination in Robideau is equally applicable to the present case. Accordingly, defendant’s conviction should be reversed and he should be afforded a new trial.

Judgment reversed, on the law, and matter remitted to the County Court of Albany County for a new trial. Main, J. P., Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., Levine and Harvey, JJ., concur.

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

In People v Robideau (121 AD2d 769), we reversed the conviction of defendant’s codefendant on the ground that County Court improperly limited the cross-examination of a prosecution witness. We stated there that People v Sandoval (34 NY2d 371) may not be used to limit the cross-examination of a nondefendant witness, and that such a witness may be cross-examined with regard to any criminal, vicious or disgraceful acts having a bearing on his credibility. As defendant in this case was tried jointly with his codefendant, our determination in Robideau is equally applicable to the present case. Accordingly, defendant’s conviction should be reversed and he should be afforded a new trial.

Judgment reversed, on the law, and matter remitted to the County Court of Albany County for a new trial. Main, J. P., Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., Levine and Harvey, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

124 A.D.2d 304, 507 N.Y.S.2d 1020, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 61335, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-catalano-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack