People v. Kostaras

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Kostaras

255 A.D.2d 602, 680 N.Y.S.2d 874, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12838

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 30, 1998·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Sampson, J.), rendered February 10, 1997, convicting him of criminal contempt in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in its Sandoval ruling permitting the prosecution to impeach the defendant with the underlying facts of a prior criminal contempt conviction. Questions concerning another crime are not automatically precluded simply because the crime to be inquired about is similar to the crime charged (see, People v Pavao, 59 NY2d 282; People v Miller, 199 AD2d 422). Further, the conviction and underlying facts concerning the violation of the order of protection were relevant to the issue of credibility since it demonstrated the defendant’s willingness to place his interests above those of society (see, People v Carr, 229 AD2d 446). Rosenblatt, J. P., Miller, Altman and Friedmann, 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, Queens County (Sampson, J.), rendered February 10, 1997, convicting him of criminal contempt in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in its Sandoval ruling permitting the prosecution to impeach the defendant with the underlying facts of a prior criminal contempt conviction. Questions concerning another crime are not automatically precluded simply because the crime to be inquired about is similar to the crime charged (see, People v Pavao, 59 NY2d 282; People v Miller, 199 AD2d 422). Further, the conviction and underlying facts concerning the violation of the order of protection were relevant to the issue of credibility since it demonstrated the defendant’s willingness to place his interests above those of society (see, People v Carr, 229 AD2d 446). Rosenblatt, J. P., Miller, Altman and Friedmann, JJ., concur.

People v. Kostaras, 255 A.D.2d 602, 680 N.Y.S.2d 874, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12838 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

255 A.D.2d 602 (People v. Kostaras) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related