People v. Everson

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Everson

799 N.E.2d 613, 100 N.Y.2d 609, 767 N.Y.S.2d 389, 2003 N.Y. LEXIS 2545

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 23, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by18 cases

This text of 799 N.E.2d 613 (People v. Everson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Everson, 799 N.E.2d 613, 100 N.Y.2d 609, 767 N.Y.S.2d 389, 2003 N.Y. LEXIS 2545 (N.Y. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division reversing the order of the Supreme Court and denying defendant’s CPL 330.30 motion, and reinstating the verdict convicting him of assault in the first degree (Penal Law § 120.10 [3]) and endangering the welfare of a child (Penal Law § 260.10 [1]), should be affirmed. A party’s failure to specify the basis for its general objection renders its argument unpreserved for this Court’s review (see People v Tevaha, 84 NY2d 879, 881 [1994]). At trial, defense counsel made only a general objection to a portion of one of the expert’s statements. Supreme Court sustained it and gave a limiting instruction. Defense counsel neither objected to the adequacy or accuracy of the limiting instruction nor specifically objected upon hearsay grounds to the expert’s further testimony. Therefore, defendant’s challenge to the expert’s testimony was not preserved. The Appellate Division properly concluded that Supreme Court erred in granting defendant’s CPL 330.30 (1) motion on a ground that would not have required “a reversal or modification of the judgment as a matter of law by an appellate court.”

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Smith, Ciparick, Rosenblatt, Graffeo and Read concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed, in a memorandum.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division reversing the order of the Supreme Court and denying defendant’s CPL 330.30 motion, and reinstating the verdict convicting him of assault in the first degree (Penal Law § 120.10 [3]) and endangering the welfare of a child (Penal Law § 260.10 [1]), should be affirmed. A party’s failure to specify the basis for its general objection renders its argument unpreserved for this Court’s review (see People v Tevaha, 84 NY2d 879, 881 [1994]). At trial, defense counsel made only a general objection to a portion of one of the expert’s statements. Supreme Court sustained it and gave a limiting instruction. Defense counsel neither objected to the adequacy or accuracy of the limiting instruction nor specifically objected upon hearsay grounds to the expert’s further testimony. Therefore, defendant’s challenge to the expert’s testimony was not preserved. The Appellate Division properly concluded that Supreme Court erred in granting defendant’s CPL 330.30 (1) motion on a ground that would not have required “a reversal or modification of the judgment as a matter of law by an appellate court.”

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Smith, Ciparick, Rosenblatt, Graffeo and Read concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed, in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

799 N.E.2d 613, 100 N.Y.2d 609, 767 N.Y.S.2d 389, 2003 N.Y. LEXIS 2545, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-everson-ny-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack