People v. Hardney

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Hardney

118 A.D.2d 728, 500 N.Y.S.2d 60, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54590

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

DecidedMarch 17, 1986

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 118 A.D.2d 728 (People v. Hardney) 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. Hardney, 118 A.D.2d 728, 500 N.Y.S.2d 60, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54590 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Meyerson, J.), rendered October 14, 1981, convicting him of burglary in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

The court’s ruling at the pretrial Sandoval hearing (see, People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371), that the prosecutor would be allowed to cross-examine the defendant with respect to whether he had ever been convicted of any other crimes in addition to attempted possession of a weapon, but would not be allowed to specifically ask if he had ever been convicted of criminal trespass, was a proper exercise of its discretion (see, People v McClain, 107 AD2d 765). The defendant’s contention that the People failed to comply with his demand for a bill of particulars is without basis. Finally, the sentence imposed was not excessive and its modification by this court is unwarranted (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Lazer, J. P., Thompson, Bracken and Rubin, JJ., concur.

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

— Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Meyerson, J.), rendered October 14, 1981, convicting him of burglary in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

The court’s ruling at the pretrial Sandoval hearing (see, People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371), that the prosecutor would be allowed to cross-examine the defendant with respect to whether he had ever been convicted of any other crimes in addition to attempted possession of a weapon, but would not be allowed to specifically ask if he had ever been convicted of criminal trespass, was a proper exercise of its discretion (see, People v McClain, 107 AD2d 765). The defendant’s contention that the People failed to comply with his demand for a bill of particulars is without basis. Finally, the sentence imposed was not excessive and its modification by this court is unwarranted (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Lazer, J. P., Thompson, Bracken and Rubin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

118 A.D.2d 728, 500 N.Y.S.2d 60, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54590, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-hardney-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack