People v. Cato

5 A.D.3d 394, 772 N.Y.S.2d 548
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 1, 2004
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 5 A.D.3d 394 (People v. Cato) 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. Cato, 5 A.D.3d 394, 772 N.Y.S.2d 548 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Collini, J.), rendered October 15, 2002, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the Supreme Court properly denied his application to review the personnel files of a police officer witness since he failed to present “some factual predicate” supporting such disclosure (People v Gissendanner, 48 NY2d 543, 550 [1979]; see People v Andino, 291 AD2d 242 [2002]; People v Davis, 203 AD2d 300 [1994]; People v Valentine, 160 AD2d 325 [1990]; Civil Rights Law § 50-a). Moreover, the Supreme Court properly curtailed the defendant’s cross-examination of that witness regarding his motive to falsify. The Supreme Court has broad discretion to limit cross-examination when questions are repetitive, irrelevant or only marginally relevant, concern collateral issues, or threaten to mislead the jury (see Delaware v Van Arsdall, 475 US 673, 679 [1986]; People v Sul, 234 AD2d 563 [1996]; People v Turner, 243 AD2d 742 [1997]; People v De Jesus, 189 AD2d 774 [1993]).

Further, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in considering the defendant’s presentence investigation report wherein the defendant denied possessing drugs as a factor in imposing a higher sentence. It is evident from the record that the Supreme Court considered the statement indicative of the defendant’s lack of remorse and unwillingness to accept responsibility for his crime (see People v Burk, 220 AD2d 891 [1995]; People v Barnes, 219 AD2d 527, 528 [1995]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit (see [395]*395People v Ali, 301 AD2d 609 [2003]; People v Mojica, 239 AD2d 609 [1997]; People v Marchese, 224 AD2d 341 [1996]). Krausman, J.P., Schmidt, Cozier and Mastro, JJ., concur.

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

Related

People v. Herrera-Machuca
2020 NY Slip Op 2060 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
People v. Gittens
2019 NY Slip Op 9284 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
People v. Ahsan
2019 NY Slip Op 1085 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
People v. Thomas
2017 NY Slip Op 7647 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
People v. Simmons (Davon)
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017
People v. Nahshal
2017 NY Slip Op 195 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
People v. Clark
129 A.D.3d 1 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
People v. Hernandez
88 A.D.3d 907 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
People v. Francisco
44 A.D.3d 870 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
People v. Olivares
34 A.D.3d 602 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
5 A.D.3d 394, 772 N.Y.S.2d 548, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-cato-nyappdiv-2004.