People v. Matuszak

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Matuszak

32 A.D.3d 1347, 821 N.Y.S.2d 355

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

DecidedSeptember 29, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 32 A.D.3d 1347 (People v. Matuszak) 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. Matuszak, 32 A.D.3d 1347, 821 N.Y.S.2d 355 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Wyoming County Court (Mark H. Dadd, J.), rendered December 9, 2004. The judgment convicted defendant, after a nonjury trial, of sexual abuse in the first degree, sexual abuse in the second degree and endangering the welfare of a child (two counts).

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him after a nonjury trial of sexual abuse in the first degree (Penal Law § 130.65 [3]), sexual abuse in the second degree [1348]*1348(§ 130.60 [2]), and two counts of endangering the welfare of a child (§ 260.10 [1]). We reject defendant’s contention that County Court erred in allowing the People to introduce Molineux evidence. The court properly concluded that evidence of defendant’s 1993 conviction of sexual abuse in the second degree was relevant to the issue of defendant’s intent and the absence of mistake. Under those circumstances, its probative value outweighed its potential for prejudice (see People v Burkett, 12 AD3d 1196, 1196-1197 [2004], lv denied 4 NY3d 762 [2005]; see generally People v Ventimiglia, 52 NY2d 350, 359-360 [1981]; People v Molineux, 168 NY 264, 291-294 [1901]). Present— Hurlbutt, J.P., Scudder, Gorski and Green, JJ.

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

Appeal from a judgment of the Wyoming County Court (Mark H. Dadd, J.), rendered December 9, 2004. The judgment convicted defendant, after a nonjury trial, of sexual abuse in the first degree, sexual abuse in the second degree and endangering the welfare of a child (two counts).

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him after a nonjury trial of sexual abuse in the first degree (Penal Law § 130.65 [3]), sexual abuse in the second degree [1348]*1348(§ 130.60 [2]), and two counts of endangering the welfare of a child (§ 260.10 [1]). We reject defendant’s contention that County Court erred in allowing the People to introduce Molineux evidence. The court properly concluded that evidence of defendant’s 1993 conviction of sexual abuse in the second degree was relevant to the issue of defendant’s intent and the absence of mistake. Under those circumstances, its probative value outweighed its potential for prejudice (see People v Burkett, 12 AD3d 1196, 1196-1197 [2004], lv denied 4 NY3d 762 [2005]; see generally People v Ventimiglia, 52 NY2d 350, 359-360 [1981]; People v Molineux, 168 NY 264, 291-294 [1901]). Present— Hurlbutt, J.P., Scudder, Gorski and Green, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 A.D.3d 1347, 821 N.Y.S.2d 355, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-matuszak-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack