People v. Saffioti

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Saffioti

88 A.D.2d 983, 451 N.Y.S.2d 787, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17368

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

DecidedJune 21, 1982

StatusPublished

This text of 88 A.D.2d 983 (People v. Saffioti) 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. Saffioti, 88 A.D.2d 983, 451 N.Y.S.2d 787, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17368 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Moskowitz, J.), rendered May 19, 1980, convicting him of burglary in the third degree, grand larceny in the second degree and criminal mischief in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment affirmed. While, in our opinion, the door had not been opened for the prosecutor to disregard the trial court’s direction not to elicit testimony concerning the witness’ suppressed identification, in light of the overwhelming evidence of guilt and the court’s curative instructions, a new trial is unnecessary (cf. People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230). We have considered the other arguments advanced by defendant and find them to be without merit. Mollen, P. J., Gulotta, Brown and Niehoff, JJ., concur.

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

— Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Moskowitz, J.), rendered May 19, 1980, convicting him of burglary in the third degree, grand larceny in the second degree and criminal mischief in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment affirmed. While, in our opinion, the door had not been opened for the prosecutor to disregard the trial court’s direction not to elicit testimony concerning the witness’ suppressed identification, in light of the overwhelming evidence of guilt and the court’s curative instructions, a new trial is unnecessary (cf. People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230). We have considered the other arguments advanced by defendant and find them to be without merit. Mollen, P. J., Gulotta, Brown and Niehoff, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

88 A.D.2d 983, 451 N.Y.S.2d 787, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17368, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-saffioti-nyappdiv-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack