People v. Chesson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Chesson

303 A.D.2d 418, 755 N.Y.S.2d 864

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

DecidedMarch 3, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 303 A.D.2d 418 (People v. Chesson) 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. Chesson, 303 A.D.2d 418, 755 N.Y.S.2d 864 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rios, J.), rendered March 22, 2001, convicting him of 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.

[419]*419The defendant’s contention that the Supreme Court erred in precluding him from introducing extrinsic evidence of the complainant’s bias, interest, and hostility is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Inniss, 83 NY2d 653 [1994]; People v Munoz, 291 AD2d 287 [2002]; People v Lewis, 167 AD2d 303 [1990]). In any event, the trial court correctly precluded a defense witness from testifying about collateral matters intended merely to impeach the complainant’s credibility (see People v Alvino, 71 NY2d 233 [1987]; People v Ferere, 294 AD2d 596 [2002]; People v Abreu, 278 AD2d 424 [2000]). Prudenti, P.J., Krausman, Goldstein and Schmidt, 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, Queens County (Rios, J.), rendered March 22, 2001, convicting him of 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.

[419]*419The defendant’s contention that the Supreme Court erred in precluding him from introducing extrinsic evidence of the complainant’s bias, interest, and hostility is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Inniss, 83 NY2d 653 [1994]; People v Munoz, 291 AD2d 287 [2002]; People v Lewis, 167 AD2d 303 [1990]). In any event, the trial court correctly precluded a defense witness from testifying about collateral matters intended merely to impeach the complainant’s credibility (see People v Alvino, 71 NY2d 233 [1987]; People v Ferere, 294 AD2d 596 [2002]; People v Abreu, 278 AD2d 424 [2000]). Prudenti, P.J., Krausman, Goldstein and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

303 A.D.2d 418, 755 N.Y.S.2d 864, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-chesson-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack