People v. Moczo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Moczo

261 A.D.2d 340, 690 N.Y.S.2d 428, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5780

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

DecidedMay 27, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 261 A.D.2d 340 (People v. Moczo) 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. Moczo, 261 A.D.2d 340, 690 N.Y.S.2d 428, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5780 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jay Gold, J.), rendered June 23, 1997, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of two counts of burglary in the first degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 8 to 16 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant’s request to recall the complainant so that defendant could attempt to impeach her credibility by means of a letter purportedly written by her, of which counsel had notice but did not advise the court prior to completion of the complaining witness’s cross examination and which was of little or no probative value. In any event, were we to find the court’s ruling to be error, we would find it to be harmless. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Mazzarelli, Rubin, Saxe and Buckley, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jay Gold, J.), rendered June 23, 1997, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of two counts of burglary in the first degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 8 to 16 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant’s request to recall the complainant so that defendant could attempt to impeach her credibility by means of a letter purportedly written by her, of which counsel had notice but did not advise the court prior to completion of the complaining witness’s cross examination and which was of little or no probative value. In any event, were we to find the court’s ruling to be error, we would find it to be harmless. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Mazzarelli, Rubin, Saxe and Buckley, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

261 A.D.2d 340, 690 N.Y.S.2d 428, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5780, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-moczo-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack