People v. Geller

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Geller

27 A.D.2d 843, 278 N.Y.S.2d 41, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4654

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

DecidedMarch 13, 1967

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 27 A.D.2d 843 (People v. Geller) 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. Geller, 27 A.D.2d 843, 278 N.Y.S.2d 41, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4654 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered April 29, 1966, affirmed. The prosecutor was entitled to cross-examine appellant, for purposes of impeachment, as to a vicious or immoral act which had been the basis for a prior adjudication of appellant as a vouthful offender (People v. Hurst, 13 A D 2d 821, 822, affd. 10 N Y 2d 939, 940). People v. Sarra (283 App. Div. 876, affd. 308 N. Y. 302) is not to the contrary, holding only that a prosecutor may not elicit directly testimony that the defendant was adjudged a youthful offender and may not characterize the act upon which that adjudication was based as a “crime”. The other points raised by appellant have been considered and, in our opinion, are without merit. Beldoek, P. J., Ughetta, Rabin, Benjamin and Munder, JJ., concur.

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

Judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered April 29, 1966, affirmed. The prosecutor was entitled to cross-examine appellant, for purposes of impeachment, as to a vicious or immoral act which had been the basis for a prior adjudication of appellant as a vouthful offender (People v. Hurst, 13 A D 2d 821, 822, affd. 10 N Y 2d 939, 940). People v. Sarra (283 App. Div. 876, affd. 308 N. Y. 302) is not to the contrary, holding only that a prosecutor may not elicit directly testimony that the defendant was adjudged a youthful offender and may not characterize the act upon which that adjudication was based as a “crime”. The other points raised by appellant have been considered and, in our opinion, are without merit. Beldoek, P. J., Ughetta, Rabin, Benjamin and Munder, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 A.D.2d 843, 278 N.Y.S.2d 41, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4654, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-geller-nyappdiv-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack