People v. Ceravolo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Ceravolo

162 A.D.2d 979, 557 N.Y.S.2d 204, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9724

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

DecidedJune 22, 1990

StatusPublished

This text of 162 A.D.2d 979 (People v. Ceravolo) 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. Ceravolo, 162 A.D.2d 979, 557 N.Y.S.2d 204, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9724 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: County Court did not err in failing, sua sponte, to conduct further inquiry or to order a hearing concerning defendant’s alleged hearing impairment. Neither defendant nor his counsel requested, prior to the close of proof, that the witnesses speak louder or that defendant be provided some form of hearing assistance. Moreover, there is no indication in the record that defendant could not understand the testimony or assist in his defense. Under the circumstances, the trial court was under no obligation to determine whether defendant required assistance (see, People v Ramos, 26 NY2d 272, 275; cf., People v Jackson, 88 AD2d 604).

The remaining claim of prosecutorial misconduct was not preserved for our review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]) and, in any event, is devoid of merit. (Appeal from judgment of Erie County Court, La Mendola, J.—murder, second degree.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Denman, Pine, Balio and Lawton, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: County Court did not err in failing, sua sponte, to conduct further inquiry or to order a hearing concerning defendant’s alleged hearing impairment. Neither defendant nor his counsel requested, prior to the close of proof, that the witnesses speak louder or that defendant be provided some form of hearing assistance. Moreover, there is no indication in the record that defendant could not understand the testimony or assist in his defense. Under the circumstances, the trial court was under no obligation to determine whether defendant required assistance (see, People v Ramos, 26 NY2d 272, 275; cf., People v Jackson, 88 AD2d 604).

The remaining claim of prosecutorial misconduct was not preserved for our review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]) and, in any event, is devoid of merit. (Appeal from judgment of Erie County Court, La Mendola, J.—murder, second degree.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Denman, Pine, Balio and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

162 A.D.2d 979, 557 N.Y.S.2d 204, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9724, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-ceravolo-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack