People v. Pryor

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Pryor

256 A.D.2d 83, 681 N.Y.S.2d 754, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13099

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

DecidedDecember 8, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 256 A.D.2d 83 (People v. Pryor) 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. Pryor, 256 A.D.2d 83, 681 N.Y.S.2d 754, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13099 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Arlene Silverman, J.), rendered January 7, 1997, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of grand larceny in the fourth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 2 to 4 years, unanimously affirmed.

Any error in the court’s failure to give a requested missing witness instruction was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence against defendant, including his confession, as well as the fact that he was permitted to comment in summation upon the witness’s absence.

The court’s Sandoval ruling was a proper exercise of discretion (People v Walker, 83 NY2d 455; People v Pavao, 59 NY2d 282, 292). Concur — Milonas, J. P., Nardelli, Williams, Tom and Andrias, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Arlene Silverman, J.), rendered January 7, 1997, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of grand larceny in the fourth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 2 to 4 years, unanimously affirmed.

Any error in the court’s failure to give a requested missing witness instruction was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence against defendant, including his confession, as well as the fact that he was permitted to comment in summation upon the witness’s absence.

The court’s Sandoval ruling was a proper exercise of discretion (People v Walker, 83 NY2d 455; People v Pavao, 59 NY2d 282, 292). Concur — Milonas, J. P., Nardelli, Williams, Tom and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

256 A.D.2d 83, 681 N.Y.S.2d 754, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13099, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-pryor-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack