People v. McKay

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. McKay

260 A.D.2d 408, 686 N.Y.S.2d 711, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3550

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

DecidedApril 5, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 260 A.D.2d 408 (People v. McKay) 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. McKay, 260 A.D.2d 408, 686 N.Y.S.2d 711, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3550 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Sampson, J.), rendered November 13, 1997, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

After a Sandoval hearing, the court ruled that if the defendant testified in his own behalf, the prosecutor would be permitted to cross-examine him about his prior conviction for the sale of cocaine in 1991. Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the prosecutor was not automatically precluded from questioning him about his prior conviction simply because it was similar to the crime charged (see, People v Pavao, 59 NY2d 282, 292; People v Johnson, 249 AD2d 417; People v Carter, 212 AD2d 722).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]) and, in any event, are without merit. Santucci, J. P., Sullivan, Florio and McGinity, 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 November 13, 1997, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

After a Sandoval hearing, the court ruled that if the defendant testified in his own behalf, the prosecutor would be permitted to cross-examine him about his prior conviction for the sale of cocaine in 1991. Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the prosecutor was not automatically precluded from questioning him about his prior conviction simply because it was similar to the crime charged (see, People v Pavao, 59 NY2d 282, 292; People v Johnson, 249 AD2d 417; People v Carter, 212 AD2d 722).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]) and, in any event, are without merit. Santucci, J. P., Sullivan, Florio and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

260 A.D.2d 408, 686 N.Y.S.2d 711, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3550, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mckay-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack