People v. Chestnut

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Chestnut

237 A.D.2d 528, 656 N.Y.S.2d 903, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2808

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

DecidedMarch 24, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 237 A.D.2d 528 (People v. Chestnut) 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. Chestnut, 237 A.D.2d 528, 656 N.Y.S.2d 903, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2808 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Corrado, J.), rendered October 11, 1994, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, robbery in the second degree, and criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

To the extent the defendant contends that the court’s restriction of his cross-examination of the complainant precluded him from presenting a "frame-up” defense, the contention is unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v Robinson, 88 NY2d 1001, 1002; CPL 470.05 [2]). While the court did err in precluding cross-examination of the complainant regarding certain prior misconduct and criminal acts which were relevant to his general credibility, that error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v Batista, 113 AD2d 890; People v Allen, 67 AD2d 558, affd 50 NY2d 898).

The defendant’s sentence was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Pizzuto, J. P., Altman, McGinity 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, Queens County (Corrado, J.), rendered October 11, 1994, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, robbery in the second degree, and criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

To the extent the defendant contends that the court’s restriction of his cross-examination of the complainant precluded him from presenting a "frame-up” defense, the contention is unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v Robinson, 88 NY2d 1001, 1002; CPL 470.05 [2]). While the court did err in precluding cross-examination of the complainant regarding certain prior misconduct and criminal acts which were relevant to his general credibility, that error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v Batista, 113 AD2d 890; People v Allen, 67 AD2d 558, affd 50 NY2d 898).

The defendant’s sentence was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Pizzuto, J. P., Altman, McGinity and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

237 A.D.2d 528, 656 N.Y.S.2d 903, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2808, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-chestnut-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack