People v. Onyeabor

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Onyeabor

59 A.D.3d 570, 873 N.Y.S.2d 660

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

DecidedFebruary 10, 2009

StatusPublished

This text of 59 A.D.3d 570 (People v. Onyeabor) 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. Onyeabor, 59 A.D.3d 570, 873 N.Y.S.2d 660 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Leventhal, J.), rendered April 7, 2006, convicting him of attempted assault in the second degree and assault in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the Supreme Court erred in its questioning of a defense witness as to a prior conviction is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Charleston, 56 NY2d 886, 887 [1982]; People v Negron, 41 AD3d 865, 865 [2007]). In any event, this contention is without merit. The court did not take an adversarial position or act in a manner which gave the jury the impression that the court had an opinion as to the witness’s credibility (see People v Moulton, 43 NY2d 944, 945 [1978]; cf. People v Melendez, 227 AD2d 646 [1996]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Rivera, J.E, Miller, Garni and McCarthy, 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, Kings County (Leventhal, J.), rendered April 7, 2006, convicting him of attempted assault in the second degree and assault in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the Supreme Court erred in its questioning of a defense witness as to a prior conviction is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Charleston, 56 NY2d 886, 887 [1982]; People v Negron, 41 AD3d 865, 865 [2007]). In any event, this contention is without merit. The court did not take an adversarial position or act in a manner which gave the jury the impression that the court had an opinion as to the witness’s credibility (see People v Moulton, 43 NY2d 944, 945 [1978]; cf. People v Melendez, 227 AD2d 646 [1996]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Rivera, J.E, Miller, Garni and McCarthy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

59 A.D.3d 570, 873 N.Y.S.2d 660, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-onyeabor-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack