People v. Tartt

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Tartt

58 A.D.3d 527, 870 N.Y.S.2d 787

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

DecidedJanuary 20, 2009

StatusPublished

This text of 58 A.D.3d 527 (People v. Tartt) 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. Tartt, 58 A.D.3d 527, 870 N.Y.S.2d 787 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Caesar Cirigliano, J.), rendered October 18, 2007, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of eight years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly allowed the People to impeach their witness with his grand jury testimony because a portion of his trial testimony on redirect examination affirmatively damaged the People’s case (see CPL 60.35 [1]; People v Fitzpatrick, 40 NY2d [528]*52844, 51-52, [1976]). In any event, we conclude that any error in allowing that impeachment was harmless (see People v Crim-mins, 36 NY2d 230 [1975]). To the extent that defendant is raising a constitutional claim, such claim is both unpreserved and without merit. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.E, Friedman, Buckley, Acosta and Freedman, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Caesar Cirigliano, J.), rendered October 18, 2007, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of eight years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly allowed the People to impeach their witness with his grand jury testimony because a portion of his trial testimony on redirect examination affirmatively damaged the People’s case (see CPL 60.35 [1]; People v Fitzpatrick, 40 NY2d [528]*52844, 51-52, [1976]). In any event, we conclude that any error in allowing that impeachment was harmless (see People v Crim-mins, 36 NY2d 230 [1975]). To the extent that defendant is raising a constitutional claim, such claim is both unpreserved and without merit. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.E, Friedman, Buckley, Acosta and Freedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

58 A.D.3d 527, 870 N.Y.S.2d 787, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-tartt-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack