People v. Pearson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Pearson

137 A.D.2d 842, 525 N.Y.S.2d 306, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2004

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

DecidedFebruary 29, 1988

StatusPublished

This text of 137 A.D.2d 842 (People v. Pearson) 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. Pearson, 137 A.D.2d 842, 525 N.Y.S.2d 306, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2004 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Greenberg, J.), rendered May 9, 1985, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The People established a prima facie case against the defendant on the count of robbery in the second degree. Accordingly, the trial court’s denial of the defendant’s motion for a trial order of dismissal was proper (see, CPL 290.10 [1]; People v Levine, 106 AD2d 471). Moreover, it was not error for the trial court to exclude the self-serving hearsay testimony which defense counsel sought to elicit on cross-examination from the People’s witness (see, Richardson, Evidence §§ 220, 357, 519 [843]*843[Prince 10th ed]). Thompson, J. P., Brown, Lawrence and Weinstein, 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 (Greenberg, J.), rendered May 9, 1985, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The People established a prima facie case against the defendant on the count of robbery in the second degree. Accordingly, the trial court’s denial of the defendant’s motion for a trial order of dismissal was proper (see, CPL 290.10 [1]; People v Levine, 106 AD2d 471). Moreover, it was not error for the trial court to exclude the self-serving hearsay testimony which defense counsel sought to elicit on cross-examination from the People’s witness (see, Richardson, Evidence §§ 220, 357, 519 [843]*843[Prince 10th ed]). Thompson, J. P., Brown, Lawrence and Weinstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

137 A.D.2d 842, 525 N.Y.S.2d 306, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2004, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-pearson-nyappdiv-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack