People v. Corcos

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Corcos

288 A.D.2d 40, 732 N.Y.S.2d 562, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10364

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

DecidedNovember 8, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 288 A.D.2d 40 (People v. Corcos) 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. Corcos, 288 A.D.2d 40, 732 N.Y.S.2d 562, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10364 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Herbert Altman, J., at hearing; Edward McLaughlin, J., at jury trial and sentence), rendered June 14, 2000, convicting defendant of robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of 8V2 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly modified its Sandoval ruling after defendant opened the door to questioning about a prior robbery committed in Canada by asserting that he was not predisposed toward stealing (People v Fardan, 82 NY2d 638; People v Veneracion, 268 AD2d 363, lv denied 94 NY2d 926; People v Rivera, 251 AD2d 142, lv denied 92 NY2d 985). Even assuming that defendant’s Canadian case resulted in a disposition equivalent to New York’s youthful offender treatment, a fact not clearly established on the record, the People properly used the underlying facts of that case for purposes of impeachment (People v Cook, 37 NY2d 591, 595). There is no evidence that Canadian law was violated by anyone in the process by which the People obtained information about the prior case.

The record does not support defendant’s contention that he was excluded from a sidebar conference at which the Sandoval modification was discussed. In any event, any such exclusion would have been justified since the issue addressed therein was a legal issue about which he could have no input (People v Rodriguez, 85 NY2d 586). Contrary to defendant’s arguments on appeal, the facts surrounding the Canadian case were fully explored at the original Sandoval hearing, at which defendant was present.

Since defendant proceeded with a suppression hearing with respect to his statements, any alleged deficiency as to notice was excused (CPL 710.30 [3]; People v Kirkland, 89 NY2d 903; People v Merrill, 87 NY2d 948). The hearing court’s conclusion that the statements made by defendant on the way to the precinct were spontaneous is supported by the record.

The record fails to support defendant’s claim that he was sentenced without a presentence report notwithstanding that [41]*41he refused to be interviewed by the Probation Department. We perceive no basis for reduction of sentence.

Defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would reject them. Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Tom, Mazzarelli, Ellerin and Lerner, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Herbert Altman, J., at hearing; Edward McLaughlin, J., at jury trial and sentence), rendered June 14, 2000, convicting defendant of robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of 8V2 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly modified its Sandoval ruling after defendant opened the door to questioning about a prior robbery committed in Canada by asserting that he was not predisposed toward stealing (People v Fardan, 82 NY2d 638; People v Veneracion, 268 AD2d 363, lv denied 94 NY2d 926; People v Rivera, 251 AD2d 142, lv denied 92 NY2d 985). Even assuming that defendant’s Canadian case resulted in a disposition equivalent to New York’s youthful offender treatment, a fact not clearly established on the record, the People properly used the underlying facts of that case for purposes of impeachment (People v Cook, 37 NY2d 591, 595). There is no evidence that Canadian law was violated by anyone in the process by which the People obtained information about the prior case.

The record does not support defendant’s contention that he was excluded from a sidebar conference at which the Sandoval modification was discussed. In any event, any such exclusion would have been justified since the issue addressed therein was a legal issue about which he could have no input (People v Rodriguez, 85 NY2d 586). Contrary to defendant’s arguments on appeal, the facts surrounding the Canadian case were fully explored at the original Sandoval hearing, at which defendant was present.

Since defendant proceeded with a suppression hearing with respect to his statements, any alleged deficiency as to notice was excused (CPL 710.30 [3]; People v Kirkland, 89 NY2d 903; People v Merrill, 87 NY2d 948). The hearing court’s conclusion that the statements made by defendant on the way to the precinct were spontaneous is supported by the record.

The record fails to support defendant’s claim that he was sentenced without a presentence report notwithstanding that [41]*41he refused to be interviewed by the Probation Department. We perceive no basis for reduction of sentence.

Defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would reject them. Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Tom, Mazzarelli, Ellerin and Lerner, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

288 A.D.2d 40, 732 N.Y.S.2d 562, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10364, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-corcos-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack