People v. Rodriguez-Alvarez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Rodriguez-Alvarez

156 A.D.2d 733, 550 N.Y.S.2d 844, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16545

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

DecidedDecember 26, 1989

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 156 A.D.2d 733 (People v. Rodriguez-Alvarez) 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. Rodriguez-Alvarez, 156 A.D.2d 733, 550 N.Y.S.2d 844, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16545 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Tomei, J.), rendered March 18, 1988, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contentions, we find that the reference to uncharged crimes during the testimony of the complaining witness did not warrant the declaration of a mistrial as requested by the defendant and does not warrant reversal of his judgment of conviction in light of the fact that the trial court sustained defense counsel’s objections and gave prompt curative instructions which were sufficient to dispel the prejudicial effect of the error (see, People v Blasich, 73 NY2d 673, 682; People v Santiago, 52 NY2d 865).

We have examined the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Mollen, P. J., Thompson, Lawrence and Eiber, 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 (Tomei, J.), rendered March 18, 1988, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contentions, we find that the reference to uncharged crimes during the testimony of the complaining witness did not warrant the declaration of a mistrial as requested by the defendant and does not warrant reversal of his judgment of conviction in light of the fact that the trial court sustained defense counsel’s objections and gave prompt curative instructions which were sufficient to dispel the prejudicial effect of the error (see, People v Blasich, 73 NY2d 673, 682; People v Santiago, 52 NY2d 865).

We have examined the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Mollen, P. J., Thompson, Lawrence and Eiber, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

156 A.D.2d 733, 550 N.Y.S.2d 844, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16545, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-rodriguez-alvarez-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack