People v. Gssime

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Gssime

269 A.D.2d 605, 703 N.Y.S.2d 750, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2310

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 28, 2000·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Kowtna, J.), rendered May 6, 1998, convicting him of arson in the second degree and criminal contempt in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the People’s fire investigation expert improperly testified as to the cause of the fire at the complainant’s home, thereby leading the jury to the conclusion that the fire was set intentionally. Since the defendant failed to object to this testimony at trial, the claim has not been preserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, the expert did not testify that the fire was incendiary in nature or that it was intentionally set. Thus, there was no violation of the rule that the ultimate question of fact is for the [606]*606jury to determine (see, People v Luckerson, 170 AD2d 695; People v Rivera, 131 AD2d 518).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Bracken, J, P., McGinity, Luciano and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

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

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Kowtna, J.), rendered May 6, 1998, convicting him of arson in the second degree and criminal contempt in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the People’s fire investigation expert improperly testified as to the cause of the fire at the complainant’s home, thereby leading the jury to the conclusion that the fire was set intentionally. Since the defendant failed to object to this testimony at trial, the claim has not been preserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, the expert did not testify that the fire was incendiary in nature or that it was intentionally set. Thus, there was no violation of the rule that the ultimate question of fact is for the [606]*606jury to determine (see, People v Luckerson, 170 AD2d 695; People v Rivera, 131 AD2d 518).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Bracken, J, P., McGinity, Luciano and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

People v. Gssime, 269 A.D.2d 605, 703 N.Y.S.2d 750, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2310 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

269 A.D.2d 605 (People v. Gssime) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related