People v. Eng

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Eng

189 A.D.2d 696, 592 N.Y.S.2d 968, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 460

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

DecidedJanuary 21, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 189 A.D.2d 696 (People v. Eng) 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. Eng, 189 A.D.2d 696, 592 N.Y.S.2d 968, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 460 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Franklin R. Weissberg, J.), rendered June 4, 1991, convicting defendant, after jury trial, of assault in the third degree, and sentencing him to a term of probation of three years and 150 hours of community service, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s claim on appeal that the prosecutor’s questioning of him before the grand jury was unduly argumentative and repetitive, and therefore unduly prejudicial, is unsupported by any record before this Court. Additionally, defendant concedes that the waiver of his privilege against self-incrimination and immunity was in conformity with the applicable provisions of CPL 190.45. Thus, defendant’s effective waiver precluded withdrawal of that waiver during questioning by the prosecutor before the grand jury designed to explore in greater detail matters brought before that panel by defendant’s testimony (Matter of Bohland v Markewich, 26 AD2d 545).

We have considered defendant’s additional arguments and [697]*697find them to be without merit. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Ellerin, Wallach, 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 (Franklin R. Weissberg, J.), rendered June 4, 1991, convicting defendant, after jury trial, of assault in the third degree, and sentencing him to a term of probation of three years and 150 hours of community service, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s claim on appeal that the prosecutor’s questioning of him before the grand jury was unduly argumentative and repetitive, and therefore unduly prejudicial, is unsupported by any record before this Court. Additionally, defendant concedes that the waiver of his privilege against self-incrimination and immunity was in conformity with the applicable provisions of CPL 190.45. Thus, defendant’s effective waiver precluded withdrawal of that waiver during questioning by the prosecutor before the grand jury designed to explore in greater detail matters brought before that panel by defendant’s testimony (Matter of Bohland v Markewich, 26 AD2d 545).

We have considered defendant’s additional arguments and [697]*697find them to be without merit. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Ellerin, Wallach, Asch and Kassal, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

189 A.D.2d 696, 592 N.Y.S.2d 968, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 460, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-eng-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack