People v. Mayo
This text of 17 A.D.3d 485 (People v. Mayo) 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.
Opinion
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Demarest, J.), rendered May 17, 2001, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant’s contention that the trial court improperly curtailed his right of cross-examination is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Lyons, 81 NY2d 753, 754 [1992]; People v Iannelli, 69 NY2d 684, 685 [1986], cert denied 482 US 914 [1987]; People v Odiot, 242 AD2d 308 [1997]; People v McEachern, 237 AD2d 381 [1997]; People v Dunbar, 145 AD2d 501 [1988]). In any event, the trial court providently exercised its discretion in limiting the defendant’s cross-examination of the eyewitness (see People v Odiot, supra; People v McEachern, supra; People v Daniels, 225 AD2d 632 [1996]; People v Delcarpio, 221 AD2d 359, 360 [1995]; People v Taylor, 214 AD2d 757 [1995]).
Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the defendant was afforded meaningful representation (see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712-714 [1998]; People v Rivera, 71 NY2d 705, 708-709 [1988]; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 146-147 [1981]).
The defendant’s remaining contentions either are unpreserved for appellate review, without merit, or do not warrant reversal. Florio, J.P., Krausman, Rivera and Fisher, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
17 A.D.3d 485, 792 N.Y.S.2d 347, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3860, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mayo-nyappdiv-2005.