People v. Keating

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Keating

159 A.D.2d 977, 555 N.Y.S.2d 635, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3279

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

DecidedMarch 16, 1990

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 159 A.D.2d 977 (People v. Keating) 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. Keating, 159 A.D.2d 977, 555 N.Y.S.2d 635, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3279 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him of robbery in the first degree and argues that the court committed reversible error by denying defense counsel’s motion to preclude the prosecutor from cross-examining defendant about pending charges. Defense counsel asserts the privilege against self-incrimination for the first time on appeal and thus has failed to preserve this issue for our review (see, People v Pavao, 59 NY2d 282, 292, n 3; cf, People v Betts, 70 NY2d 289), and we decline to reach it in the interest of justice.

[978]*978We have examined defendant’s remaining arguments on appeal and find them lacking merit. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Kubiniec, J. — robbery, first degree.) Present — Denman, J. P., Green, Pine, Lawton and Lowery, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him of robbery in the first degree and argues that the court committed reversible error by denying defense counsel’s motion to preclude the prosecutor from cross-examining defendant about pending charges. Defense counsel asserts the privilege against self-incrimination for the first time on appeal and thus has failed to preserve this issue for our review (see, People v Pavao, 59 NY2d 282, 292, n 3; cf, People v Betts, 70 NY2d 289), and we decline to reach it in the interest of justice.

[978]*978We have examined defendant’s remaining arguments on appeal and find them lacking merit. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Kubiniec, J. — robbery, first degree.) Present — Denman, J. P., Green, Pine, Lawton and Lowery, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

159 A.D.2d 977, 555 N.Y.S.2d 635, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3279, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-keating-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack