People v. Montalvo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Montalvo

251 A.D.2d 136, 672 N.Y.S.2d 738, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6924

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 16, 1998·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Alvin Schlesinger, J.), rendered June 15, 1994, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the first degree, and sentencing him to a term of 6 to 18 years, unanimously affirmed.

[137] Defendant’s argument that the trial court’s questioning of his alibi witnesses denied him a fair trial is unpreserved for appellate review as a matter of law for failure to object (People v Charleston, 56 NY2d 886, 887-888), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that the court acted within reasonable limits to clarify confusing testimony (see, People v Yut Wai Tom, 53 NY2d 44; People v Moulton, 43 NY2d 944), and that its questioning was not so excessive as to warrant reversal in light of the court’s appropriate curative instructions.

We have reviewed defendant’s remaining arguments, including those contained in his pro se supplemental brief, and find them to be without merit. Concur — Milonas, J. P., Tom, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Alvin Schlesinger, J.), rendered June 15, 1994, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the first degree, and sentencing him to a term of 6 to 18 years, unanimously affirmed.

[137] Defendant’s argument that the trial court’s questioning of his alibi witnesses denied him a fair trial is unpreserved for appellate review as a matter of law for failure to object (People v Charleston, 56 NY2d 886, 887-888), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that the court acted within reasonable limits to clarify confusing testimony (see, People v Yut Wai Tom, 53 NY2d 44; People v Moulton, 43 NY2d 944), and that its questioning was not so excessive as to warrant reversal in light of the court’s appropriate curative instructions.

We have reviewed defendant’s remaining arguments, including those contained in his pro se supplemental brief, and find them to be without merit. Concur — Milonas, J. P., Tom, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.

People v. Montalvo, 251 A.D.2d 136, 672 N.Y.S.2d 738, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6924 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

251 A.D.2d 136 (People v. Montalvo) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related