People v. Classen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Classen

187 A.D.2d 279, 590 N.Y.S.2d 698, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12618

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 5, 1992·Published

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Joseph Cerbone, J.), rendered May 2, 1991, convicting defendant after a jury trial, of robbery in the first degree and sentencing him as a second violent felony offender to a term of 10 to 20 years, to be served concurrent with a term of 6 to 12 years, imposed on defendant’s plea of guilty [280] before the same court to the charge of robbery in the first degree, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant, who was recognized by complainant, robbed complainant of a gold chain at gunpoint. Complainant immediately informed the police and subsequently identified the defendant in a lineup. While the trial court interjected its opinion on two occasions as to the relevance of counsel’s cross-examination, and made an observation as to the relative sizes of defendant and the complainant, any potential prejudice was minimized by the court’s immediate and comprehensive curative instructions (People v Almeida, 159 AD2d 508, 509, lv denied 76 NY2d 730; cf., People v Comer, 73 NY2d 955, 956-957).

We have examined defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Wallach, Kupferman and Kassal, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Joseph Cerbone, J.), rendered May 2, 1991, convicting defendant after a jury trial, of robbery in the first degree and sentencing him as a second violent felony offender to a term of 10 to 20 years, to be served concurrent with a term of 6 to 12 years, imposed on defendant’s plea of guilty [280] before the same court to the charge of robbery in the first degree, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant, who was recognized by complainant, robbed complainant of a gold chain at gunpoint. Complainant immediately informed the police and subsequently identified the defendant in a lineup. While the trial court interjected its opinion on two occasions as to the relevance of counsel’s cross-examination, and made an observation as to the relative sizes of defendant and the complainant, any potential prejudice was minimized by the court’s immediate and comprehensive curative instructions (People v Almeida, 159 AD2d 508, 509, lv denied 76 NY2d 730; cf., People v Comer, 73 NY2d 955, 956-957).

We have examined defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Wallach, Kupferman and Kassal, JJ.

People v. Classen, 187 A.D.2d 279, 590 N.Y.S.2d 698, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12618 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

187 A.D.2d 279 (People v. Classen) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related