People v. Thomas

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Thomas

257 A.D.2d 584, 682 N.Y.S.2d 897, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 100

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

DecidedJanuary 11, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 257 A.D.2d 584 (People v. Thomas) 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. Thomas, 257 A.D.2d 584, 682 N.Y.S.2d 897, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 100 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Clabby, J.), rendered October 31, 1996, convicting him of sodomy in the first degree and sexual abuse in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that certain statements by the prosecutor on summation constituted reversible error is unpreserved for appellate review since he failed either to object at all, or to object with sufficient specificity, to ask for curative instructions, or to request a mistrial when they were made (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Fleming, 70 NY2d 947, 948; People v Medina, 53 NY2d 951, 953; People v Udzinski, 146 AD2d 245, 250). In any event, the defendant’s contentions are without merit. The prosecutor’s statements constituted fair comment on the evidence (see, People v Ashwal, 39 NY2d 105), or were an “appropriate response to defense counsel’s arguments on summation” (People v Acevedo, 156 AD2d 569, 570; see, People v Goodson, 185 AD2d 945; People v Baldo, 107 AD2d 751).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review. In any event, they are without merit. Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Joy and Florio, 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, Queens County (Clabby, J.), rendered October 31, 1996, convicting him of sodomy in the first degree and sexual abuse in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that certain statements by the prosecutor on summation constituted reversible error is unpreserved for appellate review since he failed either to object at all, or to object with sufficient specificity, to ask for curative instructions, or to request a mistrial when they were made (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Fleming, 70 NY2d 947, 948; People v Medina, 53 NY2d 951, 953; People v Udzinski, 146 AD2d 245, 250). In any event, the defendant’s contentions are without merit. The prosecutor’s statements constituted fair comment on the evidence (see, People v Ashwal, 39 NY2d 105), or were an “appropriate response to defense counsel’s arguments on summation” (People v Acevedo, 156 AD2d 569, 570; see, People v Goodson, 185 AD2d 945; People v Baldo, 107 AD2d 751).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review. In any event, they are without merit. Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Joy and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

257 A.D.2d 584, 682 N.Y.S.2d 897, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 100, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-thomas-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack