People v. Tingling

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Tingling

21 A.D.3d 857, 801 N.Y.S.2d 323

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

DecidedSeptember 29, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 21 A.D.3d 857 (People v. Tingling) 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. Tingling, 21 A.D.3d 857, 801 N.Y.S.2d 323 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (John A.K. Bradley, J.), rendered November 12, 2003, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of promoting prostitution in the second degree and endangering the welfare of a child, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 7V2 to 15 years and 1 year, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly exercised its discretion in admitting the uncharged crimes evidence challenged by defendant on appeal since it went directly to the issue of whether defendant knowingly advanced or profited from prostitution, as required by Penal Law § 230.30. We do not find this evidence to be cumula[858]*858tive or unduly prejudicial (see People v Alvino, 71 NY2d 233, 245 [1987]). Concur—Friedman, J.P., Sullivan, Nardelli, Gonzalez and Sweeny, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (John A.K. Bradley, J.), rendered November 12, 2003, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of promoting prostitution in the second degree and endangering the welfare of a child, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 7V2 to 15 years and 1 year, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly exercised its discretion in admitting the uncharged crimes evidence challenged by defendant on appeal since it went directly to the issue of whether defendant knowingly advanced or profited from prostitution, as required by Penal Law § 230.30. We do not find this evidence to be cumula[858]*858tive or unduly prejudicial (see People v Alvino, 71 NY2d 233, 245 [1987]). Concur—Friedman, J.P., Sullivan, Nardelli, Gonzalez and Sweeny, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

21 A.D.3d 857, 801 N.Y.S.2d 323, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-tingling-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack