People v. Crisp

Opinion

People v Crisp

2026 NY Slip Op 05192

September 2, 2026

Appellate Division, Second Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

The People of the State of New York, respondent,

v

Corey Crisp, appellant.

Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department

Decided on September 2, 2026

2024-02414, (Ind. No. 70430/23)

Colleen D. Duffy, J.P.

William G. Ford

Carl J. Landicino

Elena Goldberg Velazquez, JJ.

Steven A. Feldman, Manhasset, NY, for appellant.

Anne T. Donnelly, District Attorney, Mineola, NY (Monica M.C. Leiter and Judith R. Sternberg of counsel), for respondent.

[*1]

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Tammy S. Robbins, J.), rendered March 20, 2024, convicting him of attempted assault in the first degree, criminal use of a firearm in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (two counts), criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and reckless endangerment in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant was convicted, after a jury trial, of attempted assault in the first degree, criminal use of a firearm in the second degree, two counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and reckless endangerment in the first degree arising out of a shooting altercation with another person in the hallways of a residential building.

The defendant's contention that the testimony of a detective at trial that the Nassau County Gang Investigation Squad took primary responsibility for investigating the shooting altercation deprived the defendant of a fair trial is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2]). Moreover, the defendant waived any objection by referencing such evidence in front of the jury prior to that detective's testimony (see People v Picart, 171 AD3d 799, 801). In any event, the defendant's contention is without merit since such testimony provided background information relevant for the purpose of completing the narrative of events leading to the defendant's arrest (see People v Tosca, 98 NY2d 660, 661; People v Armstrong, 210 AD3d 900, 900).

The defendant also failed to preserve for appellate review his contention that the detective's testimony that witnesses seen in surveillance video footage of the altercation were afraid to cooperate with police and that such non-cooperation was common for witnesses in shooting cases denied him of the right to a fair trial and to confront witnesses (see CPL 470.05[2]; People v Armstrong, 210 AD3d at 900). As relevant to the testimony that the witnesses were afraid to cooperate, the County Court sustained the defendant's objection to the question, the question and answer were stricken, and the court directed the jury to disregard them. The defendant failed to ask for further curative instructions or move for a mistrial (see CPL 470.05[2]; People v Munnerlyn, 193 AD3d 981, 982). The jury is presumed to have followed the court's instructions to disregard the stricken testimony (see People v Williams, 214 AD3d 828, 830).

Similarly, the defendant's contentions that the evidence presented at trial about his prior encounter with police deprived him of a fair trial are unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2]). The defendant failed to seek a curative instruction after the County Court struck the detective's testimony that the defendant had an encounter with a Nassau County police officer, and the jury is presumed to have followed the court's instructions to disregard such stricken testimony (see id.; People v Williams, 214 AD3d at 830; People v Munnerlyn, 193 AD3d at 982). In any event, the defendant was not prejudiced since the admissible evidence did not establish that he had multiple encounters with the police, nor did it suggest criminality as to the one encounter with him (see People v Chandler, 59 AD3d 562, 562).

The defendant's contention that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel is without merit (see People v Govan, 248 AD3d 1276, 1277). The evidence, the law, and the circumstances of this particular case, viewed in totality, reveal that trial counsel provided meaningful representation and was not ineffective for failing to preserve certain issues or request certain curative or limiting instructions (see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712; People v Wright, 237 AD3d 758, 759).

The defendant's remaining contention is without merit.

DUFFY, J.P., FORD, LANDICINO and GOLDBERG VELAZQUEZ, JJ., concur.

2024-02414 DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION

The People, etc., respondent,

v Corey Crisp, appellant.

(Ind. No. 70430/23)

Motion by the People to strike stated portions of the defendant's reply brief on the ground that it improperly raises arguments for the first time in reply or, in the alternative, for leave to file a sur-reply brief. By decision and order on motion of this Court dated April 15, 2026, the motion was held in abeyance and referred to the panel of Justices hearing the appeal for determination upon the argument or submission thereof.

Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and no papers having been filed in opposition thereto, and upon the argument of the appeal, it is

ORDERED that the motion is granted to the extent that the portion of the defendant's reply brief beginning on page 21 with the words "[t]he People themselves concede" and through the end of page 25, is deemed stricken and has not been considered on the appeal, and the motion is otherwise denied.

DUFFY, J.P., FORD, LANDICINO and GOLDBERG VELAZQUEZ, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Darrell M. Joseph

Clerk of the Court