People v. Deida

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Deida

199 A.D.2d 131, 605 N.Y.S.2d 74, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12027

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

DecidedDecember 16, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 199 A.D.2d 131 (People v. Deida) 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. Deida, 199 A.D.2d 131, 605 N.Y.S.2d 74, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12027 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Stephen Crane, J.), rendered March 26, 1991, convicting defendant, upon a jury verdict, of sexual abuse in the second degree and endangering the welfare of a child, and sentencing him to a definite term of four months of intermittent incarceration and a concurrent three year term of probation, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

Defense counsel entered into a stipulation rather than risk the consequences of a negative determination on evidence considered to be detrimental to the defense. Therefore, it cannot be said that the trial court forced defendant into a stipulation waiving his rights to cross-examine the social worker. Defendant’s case-in-chief also opened the door to [132]*132possible rebuttal testimony concerning his past medical records, including the reasons why he was readmitted to the hospital (cf., People v Bagarozy, 132 AD2d 225, 237), and therefore, the stipulation was a reasonable choice. Defendant’s claim that a proper foundation was never laid as to the social worker’s qualifications as an expert is unpreserved for appellate review (CPL 470.05 [2]) and meritless. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Wallach, Kupferman, Asch and Kassal, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Stephen Crane, J.), rendered March 26, 1991, convicting defendant, upon a jury verdict, of sexual abuse in the second degree and endangering the welfare of a child, and sentencing him to a definite term of four months of intermittent incarceration and a concurrent three year term of probation, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

Defense counsel entered into a stipulation rather than risk the consequences of a negative determination on evidence considered to be detrimental to the defense. Therefore, it cannot be said that the trial court forced defendant into a stipulation waiving his rights to cross-examine the social worker. Defendant’s case-in-chief also opened the door to [132]*132possible rebuttal testimony concerning his past medical records, including the reasons why he was readmitted to the hospital (cf., People v Bagarozy, 132 AD2d 225, 237), and therefore, the stipulation was a reasonable choice. Defendant’s claim that a proper foundation was never laid as to the social worker’s qualifications as an expert is unpreserved for appellate review (CPL 470.05 [2]) and meritless. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Wallach, Kupferman, Asch and Kassal, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

199 A.D.2d 131, 605 N.Y.S.2d 74, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12027, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-deida-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack