People v. Ecock

124 A.D.2d 672, 508 N.Y.S.2d 47, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 61973
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 10, 1986·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

[673]*673The defendant’s claims of error with respect to the court’s justification charge and supplemental charge are unpreserved for appellate review as a matter of law (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Thomas, 50 NY2d 467, 471), and are, in any event, without merit (see, People v Goetz, 68 NY2d 96; People v Almodovar, 62 NY2d 126, 131-132). Any prejudice arising from the single instance of improper questioning by the prosecutor was, in this instance, negated by the court’s prompt curative instruction (see, People v Santiago, 52 NY2d 865; People v Heppard, 121 AD2d 466; People v Davis, 108 AD2d 924).

Finally, the sentence and amended sentence imposed evince neither an abuse of discretion nor a failure to observe sentencing principles on the part of the sentencing Judge (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80, 86-87). Lazer, J. P., Niehoff, Lawrence and Kooper, JJ., concur.

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

People v. Ecock, 124 A.D.2d 672, 508 N.Y.S.2d 47, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 61973 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

124 A.D.2d 672 (People v. Ecock) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Douglas
149 A.D.2d 613 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1989)
People v. Norwood
133 A.D.2d 423 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1987)