People v. Kolupa

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Kolupa

916 N.E.2d 430, 13 N.Y.3d 786

New York Court of Appeals·Decided September 22, 2009·Published·Cited by 73 cases

Opinions

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

[787]*787Defendant failed to preserve his argument that the People introduced insufficient evidence to corroborate the child victim’s testimony. At the close of the People’s case, the trial court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss and defendant proceeded to present his own evidence. He did not thereafter renew the motion to dismiss at the close of his proof or specifically argue that there was not sufficient corroboration of the victim’s statements. As a result, this issue is not reviewable (see e.g. People v Lane, 7 NY3d 888, 889 [2006]; People v Payne, 3 NY3d 266, 273 [2004]; People v Hines, 97 NY2d 56, 61-62 [2001]). Defendant’s remaining contention is without merit.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

[787]*787Defendant failed to preserve his argument that the People introduced insufficient evidence to corroborate the child victim’s testimony. At the close of the People’s case, the trial court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss and defendant proceeded to present his own evidence. He did not thereafter renew the motion to dismiss at the close of his proof or specifically argue that there was not sufficient corroboration of the victim’s statements. As a result, this issue is not reviewable (see e.g. People v Lane, 7 NY3d 888, 889 [2006]; People v Payne, 3 NY3d 266, 273 [2004]; People v Hines, 97 NY2d 56, 61-62 [2001]). Defendant’s remaining contention is without merit.

People v. Kolupa, 916 N.E.2d 430, 13 N.Y.3d 786 (N.Y. 2009).

Pincite

916 N.E.2d 430 (People v. Kolupa) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinions

Related