People v. Scheri

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Scheri

268 A.D.2d 251, 701 N.Y.S.2d 45, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 353

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

DecidedJanuary 11, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 268 A.D.2d 251 (People v. Scheri) 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. Scheri, 268 A.D.2d 251, 701 N.Y.S.2d 45, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 353 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Bernard Fried, J.), rendered July 23, 1993, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of stolen property in the second degree and criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of IV2 to 4V2 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s complaints about the court’s Sandoval ruling are not preserved for review, and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would find that the court balanced the appropriate factors and properly exercised its discretion. The court properly permitted cross-examination on the basis of prior acts of dishonesty that were highly relevant to credibility notwithstanding their similarity to the charges against defendant (see, People v Mattiace, 77 NY2d 269, 275-276; People v Pavao, 59 NY2d 282, 292). The prior bad acts were not the subject of pending charges (compare, People v Betts, 70 NY2d 289), and, since defendant never raised the issue, the court had no opportunity to ascertain whether or not there was an actual self-incrimination problem and, if so, to fashion a suitable remedy.

Defendant’s remaining contention is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would reject it. Concur—Williams, J. P., Mazzarelli, Wallach, Andrias and Friedman, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Bernard Fried, J.), rendered July 23, 1993, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of stolen property in the second degree and criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of IV2 to 4V2 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s complaints about the court’s Sandoval ruling are not preserved for review, and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would find that the court balanced the appropriate factors and properly exercised its discretion. The court properly permitted cross-examination on the basis of prior acts of dishonesty that were highly relevant to credibility notwithstanding their similarity to the charges against defendant (see, People v Mattiace, 77 NY2d 269, 275-276; People v Pavao, 59 NY2d 282, 292). The prior bad acts were not the subject of pending charges (compare, People v Betts, 70 NY2d 289), and, since defendant never raised the issue, the court had no opportunity to ascertain whether or not there was an actual self-incrimination problem and, if so, to fashion a suitable remedy.

Defendant’s remaining contention is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would reject it. Concur—Williams, J. P., Mazzarelli, Wallach, Andrias and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

268 A.D.2d 251, 701 N.Y.S.2d 45, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 353, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-scheri-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack