People v. Murphy

2019 NY Slip Op 308
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 16, 2019
DocketInd. No. 5762/13
StatusPublished

This text of 2019 NY Slip Op 308 (People v. Murphy) 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. Murphy, 2019 NY Slip Op 308 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2019).

Opinion

People v Murphy (2019 NY Slip Op 00308)
People v Murphy
2019 NY Slip Op 00308
Decided on January 16, 2019
Appellate Division, Second Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.


Decided on January 16, 2019 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, J.P.
SYLVIA O. HINDS-RADIX
COLLEEN D. DUFFY
VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ.

2016-04542
(Ind. No. 5762/13)

[*1]The People of the State of New York, respondent,

v

Ernest Murphy, appellant. Janet E. Sabel, New York, NY (Jonathan Garelick of counsel), for appellant.


Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Leonard Joblove, Diane R. Eisner, and Daniel Berman of counsel), for respondent.



DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Matthew J. Sciarrino, J.), rendered March 18, 2016, convicting him of resisting arrest, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

Where an objection to an improper remark is followed by the court's curative instruction, it is presumed to alleviate any prejudice to the defendant (see People v Ferguson, 82 NY2d 837, 838; People v Springs, 156 AD3d 914, 915; People v Macaluso, 144 AD3d 947; People v Nealy, 32 AD3d 400, 401-402). Here, the Supreme Court issued a prompt curative instruction directing the jury not to consider an improper reference by a court reporter reading from the grand jury transcript. The jury is presumed to have followed the court's instruction (see People v Springs, 156 AD3d at 915; People v Nealy, 32 AD3d at 401-402), which was sufficient to ameliorate any prejudice to the defendant and to ensure that he received a fair trial (see People v Ferguson, 82 NY2d at 838).

LEVENTHAL, J.P., HINDS-RADIX, DUFFY and BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court



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

Related

People v. Ferguson
626 N.E.2d 930 (New York Court of Appeals, 1993)
People v. Macaluso
2016 NY Slip Op 7678 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
People v. Springs
2017 NY Slip Op 9176 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
People v. Nealy
32 A.D.3d 400 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2019 NY Slip Op 308, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-murphy-nyappdiv-2019.