People v. Singh

262 A.D.2d 431, 689 N.Y.S.2d 658, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6260
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 7, 1999
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 262 A.D.2d 431 (People v. Singh) 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. Singh, 262 A.D.2d 431, 689 N.Y.S.2d 658, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6260 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Marras, J.), rendered April 2, 1996, convicting him of criminal contempt in the first degree (three counts) under Indictment No. 11399/95, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence, and a purported appeal from a judgment of the same court, also rendered April 2, 1996, convicting him of assault in the second degree under Indictment No. 11401/95, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the purported appeal from the judgment under Indictment No. 11401/95 is dismissed, as the defendant did not file a notice of appeal from that judgment; and it is further,

Ordered that the judgment under Indictment No. 11399/95 is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the Supreme Court improperly limited his cross-examination of the complainant at his trial under Indictment No. 11399/95 is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v George, 67 NY2d 817). In any event, this claim is without merit. A trial court is permitted wide latitude in ruling on the scope of examination, and its rulings are not to be disturbed absent an improvident exercise of discretion (see, People v Ashner, 190 AD2d 238; People v Cruz, 158 AD2d 329).

The sentences imposed for the convictions of criminal contempt in the first degree were neither harsh nor excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).

Since the defendant never filed a notice of appeal from the judgment rendered under Indictment No. 11401/95, his purported appeal from that judgment must be dismissed. In any event, his contentions relating to that judgment are without merit. Krausman, J. P., McGinity, Feuerstein and. Smith, JJ., concur.

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

Related

People v. Hosannah
2 A.D.3d 458 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
People v. Rookey
292 A.D.2d 783 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
262 A.D.2d 431, 689 N.Y.S.2d 658, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6260, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-singh-nyappdiv-1999.