People v. Cordovano

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Cordovano

222 A.D.2d 1048, 635 N.Y.S.2d 863, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14101

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

DecidedDecember 22, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 222 A.D.2d 1048 (People v. Cordovano) 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. Cordovano, 222 A.D.2d 1048, 635 N.Y.S.2d 863, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14101 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him of falsifying business records in the first degree and grand larceny in the third degree, defendant contends that County Court erred in permitting the People to present proof that defendant frequently played the lottery as proof of motive. While "the proof here relied upon by the prosecution to supply evidence of motive bears no logical relationship to commission of the criminal act with which defendant was charged” (People v Namer, 309 NY 458, 462; see, People v [1049]*1049Napoletano, 58 AD2d 83, 93), we conclude that the error in admitting that proof was harmless. There is no significant probability that the jury would have acquitted defendant but for the error (see, People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 242).

We have examined defendant’s remaining contentions and conclude that they are lacking in merit. (Appeal from Judgment of Erie County Court, LaMendola, J. — Falsifying Business Records, 1st Degree.) Present — Pine, J. P., Fallon, Callahan, Davis and Boehm, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him of falsifying business records in the first degree and grand larceny in the third degree, defendant contends that County Court erred in permitting the People to present proof that defendant frequently played the lottery as proof of motive. While "the proof here relied upon by the prosecution to supply evidence of motive bears no logical relationship to commission of the criminal act with which defendant was charged” (People v Namer, 309 NY 458, 462; see, People v [1049]*1049Napoletano, 58 AD2d 83, 93), we conclude that the error in admitting that proof was harmless. There is no significant probability that the jury would have acquitted defendant but for the error (see, People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 242).

We have examined defendant’s remaining contentions and conclude that they are lacking in merit. (Appeal from Judgment of Erie County Court, LaMendola, J. — Falsifying Business Records, 1st Degree.) Present — Pine, J. P., Fallon, Callahan, Davis and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

222 A.D.2d 1048, 635 N.Y.S.2d 863, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14101, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-cordovano-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack