People v. Hosannah

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Hosannah

2 A.D.3d 458, 767 N.Y.S.2d 826

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

DecidedDecember 1, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 2 A.D.3d 458 (People v. Hosannah) 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. Hosannah, 2 A.D.3d 458, 767 N.Y.S.2d 826 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bárbaro, J.), rendered May 1, 2002, convicting him of assault in [459]*459the second degree, assault in the third degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, he was not denied his right to a fair trial. First, the defendant’s contention that the trial court improperly limited his ability to impeach the complainant is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v George, 67 NY2d 817 [1986]; People v Sutherland, 280 AD2d 622 [2001]; People v Mercado, 135 AD2d 661 [1987]). In any event, this contention is without merit (see People v Bornholdt, 33 NY2d 75 [1973], cert denied sub nom. Victory v New York, 416 US 905 [1974]; People v Sorge, 301 NY 198 [1950]; People v Savastano, 280 AD2d 498 [2001]; People v Singh, 262 AD2d 431 [1999]; People v Coleman, 195 AD2d 475 [1993]; People v Meade, 198 AD2d 307 [1993]). In addition, viewing the court’s charge as a whole, the instructions regarding credibility adequately conveyed to the jury the appropriate standard by which to evaluate the testimony of the complainant (see People v Brown, 220 AD2d 606 [1995]; People v Inniss, 192 AD2d 553 [1993], affd 83 NY2d 653 [1994]; People v Sherman, 156 AD2d 889 [1989]).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. Santucci, J.P., Krausman, Cozier and Mastro, 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 Supreme Court, Kings County (Bárbaro, J.), rendered May 1, 2002, convicting him of assault in [459]*459the second degree, assault in the third degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, he was not denied his right to a fair trial. First, the defendant’s contention that the trial court improperly limited his ability to impeach the complainant is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v George, 67 NY2d 817 [1986]; People v Sutherland, 280 AD2d 622 [2001]; People v Mercado, 135 AD2d 661 [1987]). In any event, this contention is without merit (see People v Bornholdt, 33 NY2d 75 [1973], cert denied sub nom. Victory v New York, 416 US 905 [1974]; People v Sorge, 301 NY 198 [1950]; People v Savastano, 280 AD2d 498 [2001]; People v Singh, 262 AD2d 431 [1999]; People v Coleman, 195 AD2d 475 [1993]; People v Meade, 198 AD2d 307 [1993]). In addition, viewing the court’s charge as a whole, the instructions regarding credibility adequately conveyed to the jury the appropriate standard by which to evaluate the testimony of the complainant (see People v Brown, 220 AD2d 606 [1995]; People v Inniss, 192 AD2d 553 [1993], affd 83 NY2d 653 [1994]; People v Sherman, 156 AD2d 889 [1989]).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. Santucci, J.P., Krausman, Cozier and Mastro, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 A.D.3d 458, 767 N.Y.S.2d 826, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-hosannah-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack