People v. Pavel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Pavel

163 A.D.2d 834, 558 N.Y.S.2d 369, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9503

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

DecidedJuly 13, 1990

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 163 A.D.2d 834 (People v. Pavel) 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. Pavel, 163 A.D.2d 834, 558 N.Y.S.2d 369, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9503 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

[835]*835itself into the trial (see, People v Jamison, 47 NY2d 882, 883) and, because this was a nonjury trial, there was no danger that the court, by its questioning of the witnesses, would influence the jury (cf., People v Jacobsen, 140 AD2d 938). The evidence was sufficient to sustain the verdict. The testimony of the unsworn child was corroborated not only by the testimony of the child who was sworn, but also by the physical examination of the victim. The record does not support defendant’s contention that inadmissible evidence tainted the verdict. Defendant was not deprived of effective assistance of counsel. And, finally, the record is insufficient to sustain defendant’s assertion that the court talked to the prosecution witnesses in the absence of defense counsel. (Appeal from judgment of Onondaga County Court, Brandt, J.—sodomy, first degree.) Present—Boomer, J. P., Green, Pine and Davis, JJ.

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

[835]*835itself into the trial (see, People v Jamison, 47 NY2d 882, 883) and, because this was a nonjury trial, there was no danger that the court, by its questioning of the witnesses, would influence the jury (cf., People v Jacobsen, 140 AD2d 938). The evidence was sufficient to sustain the verdict. The testimony of the unsworn child was corroborated not only by the testimony of the child who was sworn, but also by the physical examination of the victim. The record does not support defendant’s contention that inadmissible evidence tainted the verdict. Defendant was not deprived of effective assistance of counsel. And, finally, the record is insufficient to sustain defendant’s assertion that the court talked to the prosecution witnesses in the absence of defense counsel. (Appeal from judgment of Onondaga County Court, Brandt, J.—sodomy, first degree.) Present—Boomer, J. P., Green, Pine and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

163 A.D.2d 834, 558 N.Y.S.2d 369, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9503, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-pavel-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack