People v. Howard

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Howard

192 A.D.2d 303, 595 N.Y.S.2d 690, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3308

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

DecidedApril 1, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 192 A.D.2d 303 (People v. Howard) 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. Howard, 192 A.D.2d 303, 595 N.Y.S.2d 690, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3308 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Alvin Schlesinger, J.), rendered May 24, 1991, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to a term of 4 to 8 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant failed to preserve any claim of error by the trial court regarding its participation in the questioning of the complainant and defendant by appropriate and timely objection (CPL 470.05). In any event, the participation complained of constituted an appropriate exercise of discretion to encourage clarity, rather than obscurity, in the development of proof, without conveying any opinion of the court (People v Moulton, 43 NY2d 944, 945). In this connection, we note that the trial court also appropriately exercised its discretion in precluding repetitive questioning on cross-examination (People v Sorge, 301 NY 198, 201-202).

We have considered defendant’s additional claims of error and find them to be both unpreserved and without merit. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Carro, Ellerin, Kupferman and Asch, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Alvin Schlesinger, J.), rendered May 24, 1991, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to a term of 4 to 8 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant failed to preserve any claim of error by the trial court regarding its participation in the questioning of the complainant and defendant by appropriate and timely objection (CPL 470.05). In any event, the participation complained of constituted an appropriate exercise of discretion to encourage clarity, rather than obscurity, in the development of proof, without conveying any opinion of the court (People v Moulton, 43 NY2d 944, 945). In this connection, we note that the trial court also appropriately exercised its discretion in precluding repetitive questioning on cross-examination (People v Sorge, 301 NY 198, 201-202).

We have considered defendant’s additional claims of error and find them to be both unpreserved and without merit. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Carro, Ellerin, Kupferman and Asch, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

192 A.D.2d 303, 595 N.Y.S.2d 690, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3308, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-howard-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack