People v. Martorana

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Martorana

187 A.D.2d 975, 592 N.Y.S.2d 934, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13988

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

DecidedNovember 18, 1992

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 187 A.D.2d 975 (People v. Martorana) 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. Martorana, 187 A.D.2d 975, 592 N.Y.S.2d 934, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13988 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant was convicted of manslaughter after a nonjury trial at which he testified. A Sandoval hearing was held in chambers in defendant’s absence and the court’s ruling that defendant could be cross-examined on a disorderly conduct conviction was put on the record before he testified. There was no objection to that procedure. We find that defendant’s presence at the Sandoval hearing would have been superfluous and that reversal is not required on these facts (see, People v Dokes, 79 NY2d 656, 662). The court did not err in allowing the prosecutor to impeach defendant with his prior statement with respect to which no CPL 710.30 notice was served (see, People v Mitchell, 155 AD2d 879, lv denied 76 NY2d 739). Defendant’s sentence was neither harsh [976]*976nor excessive. (Appeal from Judgment of Monroe County Court, Connell, J. — Manslaughter, 1st Degree.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Boomer, Pine, Fallon and Doerr, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant was convicted of manslaughter after a nonjury trial at which he testified. A Sandoval hearing was held in chambers in defendant’s absence and the court’s ruling that defendant could be cross-examined on a disorderly conduct conviction was put on the record before he testified. There was no objection to that procedure. We find that defendant’s presence at the Sandoval hearing would have been superfluous and that reversal is not required on these facts (see, People v Dokes, 79 NY2d 656, 662). The court did not err in allowing the prosecutor to impeach defendant with his prior statement with respect to which no CPL 710.30 notice was served (see, People v Mitchell, 155 AD2d 879, lv denied 76 NY2d 739). Defendant’s sentence was neither harsh [976]*976nor excessive. (Appeal from Judgment of Monroe County Court, Connell, J. — Manslaughter, 1st Degree.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Boomer, Pine, Fallon and Doerr, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

187 A.D.2d 975, 592 N.Y.S.2d 934, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13988, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-martorana-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack