People v. Hector

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Hector

248 A.D.2d 184, 670 N.Y.S.2d 764, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2392

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

DecidedMarch 10, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 248 A.D.2d 184 (People v. Hector) 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. Hector, 248 A.D.2d 184, 670 N.Y.S.2d 764, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2392 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Thomas Galligan, J.), rendered June 20, 1994, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of two counts of robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 2 to 6 years, unanimously affirmed.

Since defendant’s offer of proof failed to establish the relevance of the witness’s prospective testimony, the court’s refusal to permit defendant to call the witness was proper (People v Arroyo, 77 NY2d 947, 948). To the extent that the proffered testimony may have corroborated defendant’s own testimony, it did so only as to collateral matters (People v Perez, 236 AD2d 298, Iv denied 89 NY2d 1039). In any event, any error in precluding such testimony was harmless given that the testimony could not have affected the verdict.

Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Rubin and Tom, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Thomas Galligan, J.), rendered June 20, 1994, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of two counts of robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 2 to 6 years, unanimously affirmed.

Since defendant’s offer of proof failed to establish the relevance of the witness’s prospective testimony, the court’s refusal to permit defendant to call the witness was proper (People v Arroyo, 77 NY2d 947, 948). To the extent that the proffered testimony may have corroborated defendant’s own testimony, it did so only as to collateral matters (People v Perez, 236 AD2d 298, Iv denied 89 NY2d 1039). In any event, any error in precluding such testimony was harmless given that the testimony could not have affected the verdict.

Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Rubin and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

248 A.D.2d 184, 670 N.Y.S.2d 764, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2392, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-hector-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack