People v. Leonardo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Leonardo

268 A.D.2d 263, 700 N.Y.S.2d 696, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 309

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

DecidedJanuary 11, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 268 A.D.2d 263 (People v. Leonardo) 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. Leonardo, 268 A.D.2d 263, 700 N.Y.S.2d 696, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 309 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (William Leibovitz, J.), rendered May 12, 1997, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of two counts of assault in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a violent felony offender, to concurrent terms of 6 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s claim concerning the People’s elicitation of the many contacts between defendant’s family and the complainant after the crime is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that given the probative value of this evidence in explaining the complainant’s temporary recantation of her identification of defendant, along with defense counsel’s stated intention to elicit the recantation, the court properly exercised its discretion by permitting the People to offer evidence of these contacts on their direct case. Moreover, the court gave the proper limiting instructions.

Defendant’s ineffective assistance claim would require a motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 in order to expand the record as to matters of strategy. On the existing record, we find that defendant received meaningful representation (see, People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 713-714). Concur—Nardelli, J. P., Tom, Lerner, Rubin and Saxe, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (William Leibovitz, J.), rendered May 12, 1997, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of two counts of assault in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a violent felony offender, to concurrent terms of 6 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s claim concerning the People’s elicitation of the many contacts between defendant’s family and the complainant after the crime is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that given the probative value of this evidence in explaining the complainant’s temporary recantation of her identification of defendant, along with defense counsel’s stated intention to elicit the recantation, the court properly exercised its discretion by permitting the People to offer evidence of these contacts on their direct case. Moreover, the court gave the proper limiting instructions.

Defendant’s ineffective assistance claim would require a motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 in order to expand the record as to matters of strategy. On the existing record, we find that defendant received meaningful representation (see, People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 713-714). Concur—Nardelli, J. P., Tom, Lerner, Rubin and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

268 A.D.2d 263, 700 N.Y.S.2d 696, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 309, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-leonardo-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack